Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THAMES BARRIER AND FLOOD PREVENTION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to empower the Greater London Council to provide and operate a flood barrier, with movable gates, across the River Thames in Woolwich Reach, and in connection therewith to execute subsidiary works and to acquire lands; to confer further powers on the Greater London Council, the Essex River Authority and the Kent River Authority and other authorities; and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may pay out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of land drainage grant under section 15 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, section 38 of the Land Drainage Act, 1961, or section 37 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968.— [Mr. Weatherill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest unemployment figures nationally, and by regions of the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): At 14th February the provisional number of people registered as wholly unemployed in the United Kingdom was 968,927. In addi-

tion 649,017 temporarily stopped workers were registered as unemployed. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT similar information for regions.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that when these figures were announced last week, we read in all the newspapers that the outlook was improving? Is he also aware that three months earlier one of his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry said that the unemployment figures would not double during the lifetime of the present Government? Now that that has happened, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can answer a more realistic question. Will he now give a guarantee that at the end of the Government's term of office the wholly unemployed will be less than half the present total?

Mr. Carr: I will not give any guarantee of that kind, any more than any Minister in my position has ever given any guarantee, or any more than Ministers in the previous Government undertook to double unemployment, which they succeeded in doing in their four years of office. I point out to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the seasonally adjusted number of wholly unemployed last month rose by only 1,000, which was the smallest increase in that number for well over a year. That is some cause for a belief that the recent upward trend is now levelling off, particularly when coupled with the fact that the seasonally adjusted number of vacancies also rose.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. I apologise for raising the point now, Mr. Speaker, but it is rather urgent. Many hon. Members have been to the Vote Office and found that there are no Order Papers available to us, so we do not know what Questions are being asked. Still less do we understand the answers.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is very much I can do about that. I have noted the point.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This has put some of us in an impossible situation. I do not know whether it will be in order—[An HON. MEMBER: "They are there now."] If they are now in the Vote Office, I shall be gratified. But when hon. Members from both sides of


the House were at the Vote Office two minutes ago, no copies were available. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the House should adjourn for 10 minutes until supplies are available to us.

Mr. Speaker: That would not be appropriate in my view.

Mr. Scott: Will my right hon. Friend add emphasis to his last remark by quantifying for us the improvement in the vacancies position? Looking at the figures, it seemed to me that this was one of the first hopeful signs that the basic employment situation was now improving.

Mr. Carr: I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that the number of unfilled vacancies increased last month by 10,494 and that this represented, on a seasonally adjusted basis, a rise of 7,300.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I find some difficulty in this situation. What surprises me is that you have not been informed that apparently no Order Papers are available. It is extremely difficult to follow the Questions without them. Some hon. Members have them, but what they have is the full Order Book. They are not the usual Order Papers. We do not have a list of Questions and apparently the Vote Office has run out of them, perhaps because of a strike, because they have not been printed or have not arrived. I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you had not been informed of this difficulty before Question Time.

Mr. Hamilton: May I advise you, Mr. Speaker, that not only is the Order Paper not available but that the Order Book also is not available? I inquired a minute ago and I was told that the Stationery Office is sending supplies but cannot guarantee when they will arrive. Hon. Members are sitting here virtually defenceless in the face of this situation.

Mr. Speaker: I think we must get on. I share the hon. Member's surprise and I should have been told about this. I will certainly go into the matter. Perhaps as we move from Question to Question, as each hon. Member asks his Question he will say what the Question is.

Mr. Hamilton: Further to the point of order. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that each hon. Member reads out his Question?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I have just said.

Following is the information:

PROVISIONAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT 14TH FEBRUARY, 1972



Wholly unemployed
Temporarily stopped


South East
185,887
28,074


East Anglia
22,982
3,025


South West
56,022
11,760


West Midlands
88,171
218,464


East Midlands
47,901
78,621


Yorkshire and Humberside
91,405
103,101


North West
141,389
76,480


North
88,372
34,407


Wales
54,846
22,264


Scotland
148,823
69,229


Northern Ireland
43,129
3,592

Unemployment Benefit

Mr. Ralph Howell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons included in the latest unemployment total do not receive unemployment pay.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): On 8th November, 1971, the latest date for which an estimate has been made, about 191,000 people registered as unemployed were estimated to be receiving neither unemployment benefit nor supplementary allowances.

Mr. Ralph Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he please explain these extraordinary figures?

Mr. David Howell: There are various reasons why some unemployed persons show up in the figures as getting nothing. About two-thirds of them are persons whose entitlement is still being determined or has been exhausted or who do not satisfy the contribution conditions. Some married women and school leavers are in this category.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. This is not good enough. We are all most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your help in this matter. You have asked hon. Members to read out their own Questions and that is quite understandable. Now, suddenly, out of the blue, a number of Order Papers have arrived. If the firms


which publish the Order Papers are unable to deliver them, will you please make inquiries about Great Yarmouth? We will give you Order Papers, print them daily and make sure they are here.

Mr. Speaker: I have noted what the hon. Member has said. I now call Mr. Kinnock for a supplementary question on Question No. 2.

Mr. Kinnock: I had difficulty in hearing the Minister because of the activities of the usherette on one side and the prima ballerina on the other. Did I hear correctly that about one in four of the unemployed are not receiving unemployment benefit? How many of them are not receiving it because they have had inadequate redundancy payment awards in lieu of notice which under the present regulations disqualifies them from receiving unemployment pay?

Mr. David Howell: The hon. Member in seeking to hear above the hubbub did not get the figure quite right. It is more like one in five—21 per cent. Of these about 37 per cent. became unemployed shortly before the day of the count of the figures, and of the remainder 41 per cent. were not receiving benefit for various reasons which in some cases included that mentioned by the hon. Member. In some cases people have no entitlement because they do not satisfy the contribution conditions and some are disallowed or disqualified from receipt of benefit at the time the count is taken.

Sunderland

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the percentage of male unemployment in Sunderland at the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): Based on those wholly unemployed in the Wear-side travel-to-work area, the male unemployment rate on 14th February was 11 per cent. Substantial numbers of workers were laid off because of the fuel crisis and if those temporarily stopped are included the rate, based on the total number of males registered as unemployed, was 12·9 per cent. These figures are provisional.

Mr. Willey: Does the Minister realise that these are wholly unacceptable

figures and that Sunderland has suffered exceptionally high unemployment for several years? The Sunderland Conservative Association has been driven to demand that this matter should be considered at Cabinet level. May I be assured that this will be done?

Mr. Smith: The whole question of unemployment is considered at Cabinet level. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the figures are wholly unacceptable. But there has been a slight but very welcome improvement in the situation on Wearside. The total number of men wholly unemployed is down by 0·2 per cent. compared with last month. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would also care to reflect, as a former Minister in a Labour Administration, that unemployment did not start under the Tories. Two years ago over 6,000 men were wholly unemployed on Wearside.

Mr. John Fraser: Do not the double sets of figures that the Minister gives in answer to questions show that since 1970 the Government, by their industrial policy, have produced more days lost in strikes and unemployment than any Government since the end of the Second World War?

Mr. Smith: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Member is getting on to the realms of strikes. No one is disguising that there is a very serious situation on Wearside, as there is in the whole of that part of the North East. The important thing is to get on, cure the difficulties and get to the root causes, and that is what we are doing.

Noise

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now introduce legislation to control noise levels in factories and other places of work.

Mr. R. Carr: My Industrial Health Advisory Committee is meeting on 14th March to consider, among other matters, a draft code of practice for reducing the exposure of employed persons to noise.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging answer. May I draw his attention to the new evidence of damage to hearing


which is apparently much more widespread among those who have to work in certain manufacturing industries, and may I impress upon him the need to have properly silenced equipment and other noise suppressing devices in industrial environments?

Mr. Carr: I agree that this is a most important matter and we in this country and, no doubt, people in other industrial countries have been rather slow in dealing with it. I will do all I can to see that it is taken very seriously.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will the new Employment Medical Advisory Services Bill help in controlling the problem of damage caused by noise?

Mr. Carr: I hope so, because the underlying idea behind it is that we should have a medical service available for advising industry in future and investigating problems of this kind. I certainly hope it will contribute to solving the problem.

Mr. Harold Walker: I welcome the fact that the Industrial Health Advisory Committee is to look at what the Minister has drawn to its attention. Is he aware, however, that this does not go far enough? In the light of the recent court judgment when a precedent was set, a worker was awarded very substantial damages for what is now being classed by the court as industrial deafness. Does not this precedent establish a very powerful case for the Government to classify industrial deafness as an industrial injury?

Mr. Carr: This may be an important matter but, as the hon. Member knows, it is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I will draw his attention to what has been said.

"Training for the Future"

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how the proposals contained in the booklet, "Training for the Future", are being publicised in development areas.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): The proposals in "Training for the Future" have attracted wide-scale attention in the Press, including the Press in development areas.

Mr. Steel: It is extremely important that these proposals should be made widely available to employers and trade unions in the development areas because there has been disquiet over the years in some areas because levies are paid for training schemes which are not available in the areas in which the firms are situated. It is very important that they be brought fully into consultation on the proposals.

Mr. Bryan: This is not a document which is expected to have mass circulation. We have circulated no fewer than 150,000 copies and the reprint is now being made. It has been gratifying to see the very wide publicity given to the document, in particular in Scotland, although I understand not yet in the hon. Member's constituency. We hope that perhaps he will put that right.

Mr. Redmond: To what extent is the document a consultative document and to what extent is it to be considered a White Paper?

Mr. Bryan: The parts of the document concerning Government training centres and so on are really a continuation and development of the Government's present activities. They are not consultative to the same extent as the parts of the document which deal with industrial training boards. But I would like to underline the consultative nature of the document. The consultative nature of the Code of Industrial Practice was a great success and many people took part in the consultation which had a great effect on the final outcome. We would like the same sort of process here.

Mr. Douglas: While the proposals are futuristic there is currently a very pressing problem, particularly for the young people who are thrown out of work and who are still trying to continue their studies and further education. The document circulated to local education authorities may be appropriate in England and Wales but it is not appropriate in Scotland and the burden of paying the fees for further education is falling on the local education authority. Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to see what can be done about this?

Mr. Bryan: We have already been in consultation with my right hon. Friend


the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the education authorities, but we think that this sort of thing should come within the consultative period and consultative process.

Industrial Relations (Confidentiality of Information)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether provisions for the preservation of the confidentiality of information in the Industrial Relations Act include both his Departmental staff and those from the Commission on Industrial Relations.

Mr. Bryan: Yes, Sir, with the exception of Departmental conciliation officers not appointed under the Act. The President of the Industrial Court has stated publicly that the Court will respect the confidentiality of discussions between the parties and conciliation officers of the Department or of the C.I.R.

Mr. Huckfield: But is not the Minister aware that despite the statement by the President of the Industrial Relations Court there is tremendous concern about the provisions, not only among staff of his own Department and the staff of the C.I.R. but particularly in the trade union movement? Does not the Minister accept that the success of the commission and his own staff in dealing with these matters depends upon trade unionists feeling that they can talk freely? How can they talk freely when there is a growing fear that any information they give to C.I.R. staff and to staff of his Department may have to be given to the Industrial Relations Court as evidence against them under subpoena?

Mr. Bryan: I can only repeat the firm assurance given by no less a person than Sir John Donaldson—there is no greater authority—in his public statement at the opening of the court on 1st December, 1971, when he said that any fears that the court would require conciliation officers, C.I.R. staff or others to reveal confidential information were completely without foundation. I very much hope that this will give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks.

Lanarkshire

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are his plans for finding jobs for unem-

ployed youths over 17 years of age in North Lanarkshire.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Careers officers and the staff in employment exchanges will continue to do all they can to help youths who are out of work to find fresh jobs. The extensive measures we have introduced to stimulate the national economy and encourage industrial expansion in the assisted areas should improve employment prospects for workers of all ages.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that in Lanarkshire 17·4 per cent. of the insurable population are signing on at employment exchanges and that youths of 17 are experiencing increasing difficulty in finding reasonable jobs, such as apprenticeships, because employers must pay the wage for the age and therefore look for boys of 16? Will the Minister now take the matter up with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and tell him to take his finger out and bring industry to that part of the country, because that is the only way to give any hope to those young people?

Mr. Smith: I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware of that latter point. No one would disguise the fact that the position is anything but satisfactory in that part of the world. But the Government have made available £11½ million in Lanarkshire under their programme for public infrastructure works, which is a good indication of our intention to do all we can to help in those areas where there are great difficulties. But it will be a long-term job.

Flammable Liquids (Inquiry Report)

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases, other than that of the Highly Flammable Liquids Regulations, an inquiry before a commissioner has not reported to the Minister appointing the commissioner within nine months; and if he will make a statement regarding the reasons for the delay in this instance.

Mr. David Howell: The answer to the first part of the Question is "None". The report has now reached my right hon. Friend, the delay in submission being due to the extreme complexity of the issues raised at the inquiry.

Mr. Booth: Will the Minister accept that a number of hon. Members who are deeply concerned about industrial safety issues consider that the delay in publication of the report has been intolerable, since the safety of thousands of people working in industry has been in jeopardy? As the Minister's sole justification for not producing regulations has been the delay in producing the report, will he now move with the utmost speed to see that regulations dealing with the storage of inflammable liquids in industry are laid before the House?

Mr. Howell: I am aware of the very proper concern of a number of hon. Members on this issue. The Government fully realise its importance. The report is now being considered and copies will be published in due course.

Picketing

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek to amend the existing law concerning picketing; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will now make a further statement on the operation of the law regarding picketing.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultation he has had with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress about amending the law relating to picketing during industrial disputes.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he now has to seek to amend the law on picketing.

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission or other form of inquiry to study and report on the law and practice relating to picketing.

Mr. R. Carr: As already stated by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 22nd February, I intend to review the law on picketing in the light of recent events. I can assure the House that no changes will be proposed without consultations with the Trades Union Con-

gress and the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people were shocked by the abuse of the law during the recent dispute and that they look to the Government to clarify the present position and see that in future the law is both enforceable and enforced?

Mr. Carr: We should all remember two things. First, the majority of picketing in the recent dispute was orderly, peaceful and legal, but there was a minority of cases that many of us saw, and some of us experienced a little, which are a cause for grave concern. That is why I believe the law should be reviewed as I shall now review it.

Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend carries out that review, will he also consider the possibility of amending the law to provide that in future picketing shall be permitted only at a worker's normal place of work?

Mr. Carr: That is one of the points that will have to be properly considered.

Sir J. Rodgers: Quite apart from whether the law needs revision to prevent outbreaks of violence or needs strengthening to prevent the disruption of industries that have nothing to do with a trade dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole case for so-called peaceful picketing has disappeared? The original idea was to allow strikers to put their case to the public. Strike leaders and strikers themselves, now have access to television, radio and the national Press, and an urgent review is necessary to stop peaceful picketing, so-called, or picketing at all.

Mr. Carr: The basic purpose of picketing—to inform and persuade in a peaceful manner—is an essential extension of the basic right to strike. That must be affirmed. What gives great concern to many, including those who hold most dearly to the basic right of picketing, is that this freedom, like all other freedoms, can be put in jeopardy by gross abuse.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Does the Secretary of State accept that in this sector above all others it is necessary to maintain a fair and reasonable balance between the conflicting rights and interests of the parties concerned?

Mr. Carr: Of course I do, and I hope that is quite clear from my last answer.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that over 200,000 miners took part in the picketing at well over 500 establishments for five weeks, on a 24-hour basis, and that fewer than 50 were charged with breaking the law or going beyond the bounds of propriety? Is it not an infinitesimal problem blown up out of all proportion by Government Members and the newspapers?

Mr. Carr: I am aware that the majority of picketing in that strike was peaceful, legal and orderly, but I am also aware of the other side. So, incidentally, was a member of the T.U.C. General Council, the General Secretary of N.A.C.O.D.S., who felt so strongly about it that he felt impelled to come and see me, and tell the public he was coming to see me, to express his concern about what was going on.

Mr. Heffer: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government recognise that the picketing by the overwhelming majority of miners in the coal dispute was perfectly legal, peaceful and within the law. Is it not a fact that only last year we revised the whole question of picketing, in a minor way it is true? We discussed the whole question of picketing as part and parcel of the Industrial Relations Act. Is it not quite clear that if anyone genuinely steps outside the law as it stands, the law as it stands is perfectly able to deal with him?

Mr. Carr: I hardly think the law on picketing was a major part of last year's review, although I agree that it was part. A minor change was made, removing protection from picketing of people's homes, which we did not believe to be necessary in the modern world. The events of the last few weeks are a cause of public concern and we should be foolish, whatever our views may be, to pay no regard to that public concern. That is why I am sure I am right to review the situation.

Mr. Fell: While I absolutely accept that in the recent strike the majority of picketing was peaceful, must we not also accept that the law cannot be enforced unless it has the backing of the vast majority of the people? Is it not true

that in the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: On television.

Mr. Fell: All right, on television; so people do watch television, fortunately or unfortunately—the sort of picketing where that was seen to be so, in places like Doncaster, the law should have been enforced?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the law depends on the support of the majority One of the great needs here is that the real state of the law on this matter should be enunciated anew so that everybody knows it. However, we should realise that enforcement on the spot must be properly the responsibility of the police. None of us should under-estimate the difficulty that the police have. I had personal experience of this from a visit I made during the dispute, and I do not believe that it was possible in those circumstances for the police to enforce the law.

Mr. Harold Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while a small number of pickets at Coal House, Doncaster, indulged in behaviour which I would not seek to defend, on the night of the incidents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred the Assistant Chief Constable of Doncaster, Mr. Glendinning, who was in charge of the police on that day, said on Yorkshire Television:
The behaviour of the strike pickets today has been splendid. I have nothing but praise for them.

Mr. Carr: Yes, that may be true in the majority of cases most of the time, but we do no good to the cause of peaceful picketing in the proper sense of the freedom which ought to be enjoyed in this country if any of us seek in any way to excuse some of the incidents which took place which were a disgrace and an abuse of freedom.

Redundancy Payments Act

Mr. Kinnock: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bryan: As I announced in the House on 1st February, my right hon. Friend intends to issue a consultative document discussing whether any changes are required in the objectives of the Act or in the means by which they are secured.—[Vol. 830, c. 383.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and I express the hope that he will see fit to try to change the situation whereby people in receipt of pay in lieu of notice are disqualified from unemployment benefit. This results in a major injustice to those who have paid national insurance contributions, and is frustrating for people who think that they have behind them the security of the Redundancy Payments Act.

Mr. Bryan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question will be noted and studied in the course of the consultation period.

European Economic Community

Mr. Normanton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what most recent estimate he has made of the effect entry into the European Economic Community will have on employment prospects in the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Carr: It is not possible to make a quantitative estimate; but I am convinced that unlimited access for British goods and services to the much larger market of Europe will give a substantial stimulus to output and employment.

Mr. Normanton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, but does he not agree that one of the main prerequisites for resolving unemployment in Great Britain is for Europe as a whole, including Britain, to enjoy a continuous period of economic growth? Does he also agree that the attitude of the trade union movement on the Continent shows up markedly the way in which it is in tune with modern industrial society and the way in which many trade unionists in this country are blinding themselves and their members to the facts of life?

Mr. Carr: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that growth, which is the basic strategy of the Government, is the answer to the problem of unemployment and that that policy will be powerfully assisted by our membership of

Europe. I certainly hope that members of the trade union movement in this country will work ever more closely with their trade union colleagues in Europe and learn from their belief that the Common Market has helped to improve the standard of living and to give full employment.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware that many of us do not share his optimism about the future within the Common Market and that in any case, even if his forecasts were correct, workers in this country are not prepared to wait until we enter the Common Market for some relief of unemployment? This applies particularly in the North-West Region where the position continues to deteriorate sharply and is far worse than in any other region. During the last two years the North West has had the second highest number of redundancies in any of the regions. Will not the Government extend development area status to the whole of the North West and revise their development area programme to provide a real incentive to industries to come to development areas?

Mr. Carr: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that questions about regional policy are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I did not say that people must wait for our membership of Europe. The solution of unemployment must come through growth. Our main problem now arises from five or six years of virtually no growth. Our gross national product is today probably growing at at least twice the rate at which it was growing when the Labour Government left office.

Professional and Executive Register

Mr. Ronald Bell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the progress being made on the restyling of the Professional and Executive Register and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. The target date for the introduction of the restyled service remains January, 1973.

Mr. Bell: Will my hon. Friend say on what basis the restyling is being conducted? Does he agree that at a time when there is considerable unemployment in these categories, it is desirable that facilities should be provided as soon as


possible for the placing of unemployed professional and executive people?

Mr. Smith: Yes, Sir. We hope to improve the service in the interim. The restyling plans were put into operation after a searching study under the direction of a business adviser. At the same time we had the results of an independent market survey into employment, recruitment practices and attitudes which indicated that many employers were ready to make much greater use of the restyled service than of the present service. The new approach fulfils a real need and I believe that it will be much appreciated once it gets under way.

Mr. Dalyell: What is the evidence for saying that the employers will make greater use of the service?

Mr. Smith: As I have just told the House, an independent market research survey was conducted which, so far as a judgment can be made, is one of the best in this field.

Mr. Kinnock: What is the Minister doing to attract women to the Professional and Executive Register? If he is having difficulty in this, will he employ his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) as public relations officer?

Mr. Smith: All suitable applicants will, of course, be considered by our staff. Without going into too much detail and getting out of order, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no sex discrimination in my Department.

Training

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees will be retrained at Government training establishments in 1972 compared with 1971.

Mr. Bryan: It is estimated that about 20,000 trainees should complete courses at Government training centres in 1972, compared with 16,500 in 1971.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: What progress is being made in gaining further trade union acceptance of people who are trained in Government training centres? Does my hon. Friend intend to use the spare capacity in the Construction Industry Training Centre at Bircham

Newton, which is in my constituency, for Government training purposes?

Mr. Bryan: In answer to the first question, it is difficult to measure the progress we are making in this direction but I can say that, in consultation with the trade union leaders, we are making progress. I visited Bircham Newton the day before yesterday and was most impressed by the facilities and staff available I am glad to say that my Department is negotiating with the C.I.T.B. to use places there for courses in limited skilled construction trades. This is part of the general programme for utilising spare capacity wherever it is available.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, although all efforts made by the Government to improve the Government industrial training schemes will receive my full support and encouragement, in view of the present Government's policies in other spheres of activity many of my constituents in Lancashire would have greater confidence in the scheme if, at the end of their training, they saw a reasonable prospect of being able to obtain gainful employment?

Mr. Bryan: The hon. Gentleman will find from the figures that the record of employment of those trained in G.T.C.s is extremely high, even at a time of high unemployment.

Mr. James Hill: In view of the massive effort which the building industry is being called upon to make, will my hon. Friend ensure that sufficient numbers of places in these training establishments are kept open to produce skilled bricklayers and carpenters who are so desperately needed?

Mr. Bryan: In the increased number of places which are being provided the accent is being placed on training for craftsmen in the building trade.

Mr. Prentice: The Minister said that there would be an increase in trainees from 16,500 to 20,000 this year. Although we welcome that expansion, however modest, does it not follow that successive Government statements, particularly the Prime Minister's speech in the debate on unemployment on 14th January, have grossly exaggerated the impact this would have on the 1 million unemployed in 1972?

Mr. Bryan: I do not think this exaggeration has been made at any time. The whole programme has been brought forward in a sober and well-judged way and we have in no way deceived the House. At the end of the day the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is exactly what we have said it is—a massive increase in the country's training effort.

Retail Prices

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of increase in retail prices in the period since July, 1971; and how this compares with the rate of increase during the same period up to July, 1971.

Mr. Bryan: The General Index of Retail Prices rose by 2·4 per cent. between July, 1971, and January, 1972, compared with 5·6 per cent. between January, 1971, and July, 1971.

Mr. Skeet: I thank my hon. Friend for giving information about that trend, which must indicate a great triumph in the battle against inflation. Will he recognise this as a tribute to the C.B.I. initiative? Has he any suggestion about what should follow when that policy lapses in July?

Mr. Bryan: I would pay tribute to the C.B.I. and its initiative. We are in touch with the C.B.I. about the future, though of course I cannot foretell what will happen. This is a battle on a number of fronts and the C.B.I. has done its bit. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done his bit by reducing taxation and, probably most of all, success is due to our policy of de-escalation on the wages front.

Mr. Bob Brown: If an increase in retail prices of 2·4 per cent. is a triumph, God help us if the Government have any defeats! Does the Minister realise that there are many people who are hard pressed to make ends meet as a result of the increase in prices of 2·4 per cent.? It is no comfort to such people to tell them "Because of our policies you are only having half as hard a job as you had in the previous few months".

Mr. Bryan: The Government are far from complacent about the present situation, but we are conscious that we have

changed the trend from the disastrous situation brought forward from the Labour Government. Among hopeful signs was the fact that the trend over the six-month period between February, and August, 1971, was 5·1 per cent. which gradually went down to 2·5 per cent. from June to December. Another satisfactory trend is to be seen in the pattern of wholesale prices. In the last three months of 1971 this has increased by just over½ per cent. This also is a very satisfactory trend.

Mr. Kaufman: May we be spared any more of this collusive complacency between the Government and their back benches? Is it not a fact that according to The Grocer magazine—which ought to be well known to the Treasury Bench —retail food prices are still rising at a rate of 9·5 per cent. a year, sugar at the rate of 14 per cent. and cheese at the rate of 12 per cent.? Instead of being so complacent about the situation, what do the Government intend to do about it?

Mr. Bryan: I do not know what particular prices the hon. Gentleman is taking, but if he looks at the general rise in the cost of living he will see that it has been notably slowed down and that people are grateful for it.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday, 15th February, in London on economic matters represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. The speech was about international monetary reform, on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals have been widely recognised as very helpful.

Mr. Sheldon: In that speech the Chancellor referred to the difficulties of other countries which have their own balance of payments problems. Since we in Britain have achieved a massive surplus, which is now runnng at a higher level than at any other time this century, will


the right hon. Gentleman say why it is not being used to increase demand and reduce unemployment? The only conceivable reason for failure to use the balance of payments in this way is that it would start the reflationary cycle too early for the next General Election. Because of this factor, must we be denied the use of that surplus in increasing demand and in reducing the present intolerable level of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the size of the balance of payments in 1971, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing in his speech with monetary reform, not with the internal economy.

Mr. Lamond: Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. Friend in that speech anticipated our entry into the Common Market and suggested that it would be the financial salvation not only of this country but of many other countries? Is not the Chancellor incorrect in assuming that we shall enter the Common Market, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's speech on television the other day in which he said that the Geovernment were here to do what the people wanted them to do? If that is the case, we shall certainly not enter the Common Market.

The Prime Minister: When this House gives a majority of 112 to a policy, it is quite clear what the people's representatives want.

GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister how many times he has invited Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, to meet him since June, 1970, to discuss matters for which he is responsible.

The Prime Minister: Six, Sir, apart from meetings of the National Economic Development Council and on informal occasions.

Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that at those meetings Mr. Feather has shown himself to have a much clearer understanding than the Opposition of both the rights and the

duties of trade unions in a democratic society?

The Prime Minister: I have always found the meetings to be of value. We have covered a wide range of subjects. We have not always agreed, but at least the exchange of views has been fruitful.

Mr. Ashley: Since the Prime Minister seems well aware of the problems of surtax payers and stockbrokers, will he invite to No. 10 some rank and file trade union representatives other than Mr. Feather so that he may acquaint himself with the problems of people who are generally overlooked and neglected by the present Government?

The Prime Minister: I completely refute the remarks at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question and his earlier imputations. On the point about rank and file trade unionists coming to No. 10, a number of deputations have come to see me on various occasions and they included shop stewards and others who are not leaders of the T.U.C. This is absolutely right.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister what proposals for increasing the powers of the European Parliament he discussed in his recent conversations with President Pompidou.

The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that the meeting between Monsieur Pompidou and myself, originally planned for 19th and 20th February, will now take place at Chequers on 18th and 19th March.

Dr. Gilbert: Instead of discussing the power of the European Parliament, might it not be a good idea if the Prime Minister paid a little attention to the power of this Parliament? Does he realise that the difficulties in which we found ourselves last night were due to attempts by the Government to bully and cheat their European Communities legislation through this House and that Her Majesty's Opposition have no intention of being done out of their rights in this matter?

The Prime Minister: Two things have become apparent during the last few


days. The first is that those who pursued a policy of trying to negotiate this country's entry into the Community apparently either did not realise what accepting Community law meant or are deceiving themselves and the House in saying now that they object to it. The second thing which has emerged clearly is that those who were shouting most for the protection of the rights of Parliament, and particularly of the House of Commons, were the first to abuse those rights and obstruct the will of the majority.

Mr. Rost: Could President Pompidou be persuaded to invite the Leader of the Opposition to do a Eurovision broadcast, not simply to give the people in this country a rest but to explain to the French people the attitude of the party opposite to the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I think that the activities of the Leader of the Opposition must be left to the Leader of the Opposition. All I can say is that many European Socialists who have been endeavouring to persuade him what it is all about have confessed to me that they have failed.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does the Prime Minister realise that the European Parliament has the virility of a eunuch? Why did he not try, before signing the Treaty of Accession, to have that Parliament made responsible and powerful?

The Prime Minister: Representatives of both parties in this House have always said that when we become a member of the European Community one thing which we want to see happen is the development of the European Parliament. We also believe that one of the major contributions which we can make to Europe is in helping in that process. What worries me at the moment is that after the last few days many of our European friends are beginning to have doubts about it.

SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Ewing: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from persons who were present at the Scottish Assembly sponsored by the Scottish Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh on 14th February.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Tuesday to a Question from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). —[Vol. 832, c. 96.]

Mr. Ewing: While welcoming the news that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet the Standing Commission, may I ask whether he accepts that the assembly itself was born out of frustration with, first, the Government's economic policies, which will not solve the unemployment problem in Scotland, and, secondly, the lack of confidence in the Common Market regional policies to solve the unemployment problem in Scotland? When he meets the Standing Commission will the Prime Minister listen closely to what it has to say so that the unemployment problem in Scotland can at long last be tackled in a realistic manner?

The Prime Minister: The assembly has sent me a copy of its proposals, which are now being closely studied. It has now been agreed that I should meet the assembly on 27th March. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at that meeting we shall express our views about these specific proposals and listen closely and carefully to any other proposals which the assembly wishes to make.

Mr. Adley: When my right hon. Friend has another meeting with the T.U.C., either in Scotland or in England, will he remind it of the words of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, that one's man's price increase is another man's wage increase? [HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round,"] Will my right hon. Friend also point out to the T.U.C. that Chrysler has just announced a reduction in its work force, which presumably must not be unrelated to the recent wage increase granted by the management as a result of pressure from the unions?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right in saying that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase. I should have thought that the Chrysler announcement was a clear indication of that.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, when he meets the Standing Commission later this month, he hopes to be able to announce a general


policy for the assistance of shipbuilding, in particular for other Scottish yards as well as U.C.S.?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking at this point about commitments to be given to the commission specifically at the meeting on 27th March. However, I will discuss the matter with the commission and indicate the way that the Government's thinking is moving.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES (PROGRESS REPORTS)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for making regular progress reports on the putting into effect of the policies of his Administration.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] This is a very short point. Can you tell me why this Question has been passed?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hamilton: It is a very good Question.

The Prime Minister: There is a very good answer coming.
Ministers already report regularly to Parliament on the implementation of our various policies. Since taking office, the Government have successfully undertaken the reform of taxation, industrial relations and pensions, set in hand the reform of local government and housing finance, given the economy the largest stimulus ever, reduced the level of taxation, reshaped the pattern of public expenditure in order to give greater help to those in need and successfully negotiated entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Prime Minister aware that none of those things has been achieved, that the unemployment figures are the highest since the war and that the cost of living is the highest since the war and has escalated more in the last 20 months? If there is this great catalogue of successes, why did the Prime Minister devote almost the whole of his broadcast on Sunday evening to the question of violence when he and his Government are doing more violence to the 1 million

unemployed and the 7 million old-age pensioners than the miners did in five weeks?

The Prime Minister: The old-age pensioners have had the largest increase ever; last Christmas they were getting more in real terms than they had ever had at any previous Christmas; and they are now to have an annual review, which they never had before. The hon. Gentleman ought to try to keep in touch with what is going on.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the real problem facing the Government that, before this Parliament is halfway through, they will have implemented their entire legislative programme?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; and I shall continue to make helpful progress reports in this sense.

EMPLOYMENT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Joel Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment on employment questions; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The employment policies of all Departments, including massive reflationary measures, incentives for industrial expansion in the development and intermediate areas and expanded training programmes, are closely co-ordinated.

Mr. Barnett: While welcoming the coordination which has resulted in a reversal of his "lame duck" policy in order, we are glad to see, to help unemployment on the Clyde, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will confirm the new policy of giving £35 million handouts to companies with neither assets nor profits and whether he intends to do the same for those companies which happen to have both assets and profits?

The Prime Minister: I made it absolutely clear to the shop stewards when they came to see me in July that the Government wished to have a shipbuilding capacity on the Upper Clyde which would be as modern as any in Europe. What my right hon. Friend has


announced is not the gradual dribbling away of millions of pounds to a yard which was unable to spend any of the money on capital investment, but a properly considered programme of capital investment together with £17 million to pay off a lot of the losses which were incurred by the previous Administration's company.

Mr. Jay: Will the Prime Minister explain what puzzles the country: namely, why what he calls the greatest stimulus ever to the economy has had the worst effect ever on employment?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience in Government and his general knowledge of economic affairs, would have had some knowledge of the causes of the present unemployment cycle and would have recognised, as we did in the recent debate—which was a serious one, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's question—that the reflationary measures have had an impact on the economy but that, against that, the impact of high inflationary wages on productivity and the reduction of manpower has pushed up unemployment figures to their present level.

Mr. Atkinson: In similar answers two days ago in the House, the Prime Minister said that employers should now invest in employment. This has caused considerable controversy and doubts among machine makers generally. Will the Prime Minister now explain clearly what he meant? Is he advising employers to invest in employment or to invest in labour-saving machines? Which one is he talking about when he says that employers should invest in employment?

The Prime Minister: I was suggesting to employers that they should look ahead to the size of the market that they are

likely to have to meet in two, three or four years and that what they should then do is to replace obsolete equipment and create additional capacity. It may be that the replacement of obsolete plant leads to a reduction in labour. But, to counter that, one wants an increase of at least the same and probably more in capacity. I hope that those responsible for taking investment decisions can look at the position from the standpoint that anything they arrange now will not be effective for two or three years. We do not want them to have bottlenecks, but the capacity to meet the demand which will undoubtedly be there.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. First, Mr. Speaker, I must apologise to you for raising a point of order earlier at an inconvenient time. Secondly, I know that I am not allowed to comment on the brilliant answers that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to give to a very poor lot of Questions. However, I believe that I am allowed to ask you why Question No. Q5, in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was allowed to appear on the Order Paper at all. This is no criticism of anyone, unless it be of the hon. Gentleman who managed to table the Question. But it is clear to anyone that the Question is answered before it is ever asked, since my right hon. Friend repeatedly is making statements on all these matters. How did a Question of this kind to the Prime Minister ever appear on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: I have been considering the point since the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) raised it earlier. I am told that there is nothing out of order about the Question.

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES (PARKER COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington. This report is published today; and copies are now available in the Vote Office. The Government have not found it necessary to omit any passage on grounds of security; and the report is published with only minor amendments which do not in any way affect the sense.
The terms of reference of the Committee were to inquire whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for the interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism, and for their custody while subject to interrogation, require amendment. The Government are indebted to Lord Parker and his colleagues for the scrupulous care with which they have examined this very difficult subject.
The Committee found itself unable to agree; and it has therefore submitted a majority report signed by Lord Parker and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), together with a minority report signed by Lord Gardiner.
The majority find that the methods in question, which had been applied on a number of occasions in the past under successive Governments in various parts of the world, were applied in Northern Ireland in August, 1971, to 12 detainees, and in October to two more. They consider—and I quote—that
there is no doubt that the information obtained by these two operations directly and indirectly was responsible for the saving of lives of innocent citizens".
They conclude that the use of the methods involved could be justified in exceptional circumstances subject to further safeguards which they recommend. They consider, however, that the use of these techniques in some, if not all, cases would offend against English law; but they refrain from expressing any view about the position in Northern Ireland where legal proceedings which raise this issue are pending. Lord Gardiner in the minority report considers that these

methods are objectionable in all circumstances.
The Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with particular reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques which the Committee examined will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in accordance with our usual practices in these matters, I can confirm fully that the amendments made on security grounds were entirely marginal and made no difference to the sense of the report?
Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed reports which have said that these techniques have not been used since the Parker Committee was set up? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is so? I do not think that it comes out in the report itself.
Thirdly, while hon. Members will want to study the report and while every hon. Member faced with this very difficult problem will decide whether to accept in principle the argument of the majority or that of the minority, is the Prime Minister aware that I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, greatly welcome the announcement in the concluding part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement? It is a wise announcement in all the circumstances, and it may make more than a marginal difference to the possibility of stabilising and improving the situation in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that at the end of the two-day debate last November my right hon. and hon. Friends voted on this matter because of Compton, and, naturally, we are extremely pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has taken this wise decision?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that these techniques have not been used in cases other than those mentioned in the majority report; namely, the 12 in August, 1971 and the two in October, 1971.

Mr. Grimond: I, too, wish to congratulate the Government on their decision that these techniques should now be abandoned. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there must not be some disquiet about the fact that some


of these techniques may have been contrary to English law? What is the position of soldiers under the Army Act who might have been required to take part in the application of these techniques when, possibly, their powers may have been in conflict as between English and Northern Irish law?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, as both the majority and the minority reports point out clearly, the techniques were used over a long period in the postwar years under Governments of both parties in this House. On the second part, as this matter is before the Northern Ireland courts at the moment, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any difficulties which might arise in that respect. Obviously this is a matter in which the Government have given thought to the position of Her Majesty's forces. But I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Compton Report showed that these techniques were used by the R.U.C. under the authority of the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in criminal investigations it will still be possible to put a blanket over the head of an individual who is in custody when there are good reasons for maintaining concealment of identity?

The Prime Minister: A directive has been issued to the G.O.C., which, therefore covers the whole Army in Northern Ireland, in the sense of the statement that I have made. As for the use of techniques for non-interrogation, obviously from the point of view of security sometimes it is necessary for people to be asked to stand against a wall with their arms raised so that they may be searched to see whether they have weapons. That is a specific and limited use. As for putting a blanket over someone's head, the Army has been instructed not to use that technique in any circumstances. The police are covered by the normal police regulations. If a person asks to be covered so that his identity should not be revealed in public, it is possible for that to happen.

Mr. Mayhew: While I welcome the Prime Minister's decision, may I ask him whether he is aware of the substantial

body of expert opinion which says that the technique called sensory isolation can cause mental distress for long periods thereafter and permanently in certain circumstances? Was this known to the Government when they approved this technique?

The Prime Minister: Both the majority and the minority reports discussed this in some detail, and there is obviously a conflict of medical evidence about it. Her Majesty's Forces will of course continue to be trained in resistance to these techniques and, at the same time, training methods are being reviewed in regard to their application to Her Majesty's Forces. But the general conclusion of the majority report is that it has not been possible to discover ill effects on Her Majesty's Forces as a result of subjecting them to these techniques in training. But they also point out that a training position may prove to be different from a position in time of emergency or war.

Mr. Woodhouse: Does the Government's decision to discontinue intensive interrogation of this kind apply only in Northern Ireland or to all future circumstances anywhere?

The Prime Minister: I must make it plain that interrogation in depth will continue but that these techniques will not be used. It is important that interrogation should continue. The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances. If a Government did decide—on whatever grounds I would not like to foresee—that additional techniques were required for interrogation, then I think that, on the advice which is given in both the majority and the minority reports, and subject to any cases before the courts at the moment, they would probably have to come to the House and ask for the powers to do it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Although one welcomes the ending of these intolerable techniques, was not the most disquieting feature the fact that, whether they were known to the members of this Government or their predecessor, they were not known to the House or to the country? Is it not right that the procedure followed in interrogation in depth, even the one which is still being sanctioned, should be put into some written form and be discussed by and available to the public?

The Prime Minister: The recommendation of the majority report was that, if the techniques were to be continued in a limited form, it would be necessary to set down guidelines in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think it would be possible or perhaps advisable that there should be issued as a public document any account of methods of interrogation which did not use these techniques. I am prepared to consider that, but I should have thought that as a security measure it is probably not advisable.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the holding of this inquiry, the publication of this report and my right hon. Friend's statement today indicative of a civilised nation and an example to the world?

The Prime Minister: I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion in this matter. The majority report emphasises that the techniques had been used for a long time; and that in this particular case, in the sudden emergency of 9th August, they were used. In paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 the report sets out very clearly the advantages which were gained from that. But now that the situation is more a continuing one from the point of view of interrogation, I repeat that I think that the Government have come to the right conclusion.

Mr. McManus: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this report will only further sap the confidence of the minority in all reports instituted by this House, since it appears to attempt to whitewash what went on, and that no welcome whatever will be forthcoming from the people whom I represent for the fact that the Government have now been shamed by force of public opinion into discontinuing barbaric practices?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that this will call into further question the validity or usefulness of a tribunal which is now sitting? Will he particularly bear in mind that, if this sort of thing foreshadows the long-expected initiatives, they are bound, if they follow this sort of pattern, to be rejected outright by the minority?
Finally, on the question of interrogation, will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal guarantee to the House that

another form of interrogation, whereby soldiers go around remote parts of my constituency and ask people their religion, will cease forthwith?

The Prime Minister: I completely repudiate what the hon. Gentleman says. If he is claiming to speak for his constituents, perhaps he will prevail upon them to abandon the barbaric practices of the I.R.A. in murdering helpless individuals sitting by their own firesides.

Mr. McManus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister of England to stand in this House and accuse my constituents, without proof at all, of barbaric practices?

Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. Tapsell: If the interrogation procedures which have been used in past years, which the report confirms have saved innocent lives, are now to be discontinued, will it not be necessary very speedily to issue a new and clear code of practice to our Forces in Ulster in case a new emergency should arise in which interrogation in depth should again be necessary?

The Prime Minister: I repeat that interrogation in depth will continue when it is deemed right, but these techniques will not be used for this purpose. We must distinguish between these two things. I would repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), that if any Government did come to the decision, after the most careful thought, that it was necessary to use some or all of these techniques, it would be necessary to come to the House first before doing so.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer to my earlier question, when he said that these techniques had not been used during the period following the Compton Report. Is he aware that I have sent the Home Secretary some alleged evidence—I cannot evaluate it—purporting to show that there has been a continuation of this kind of practice? Will he be prepared to set against what he has said any findings which the Home Secretary may give him? Is he aware that only today there have been rather serious allegations of


a continuation of practices—whether these specific ones or the others which were not the subject of the Prime Minister's announcement I am not certain?
Do we take it from his statement that the Prime Minister has no present intention of introducing legislation in this matter—for example, possibly to validate past actions—at any rate until the result of cases now pending in the courts becomes known to the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. We have no intention at the moment of introducing legislation to deal with this matter by way of an idemnity. Naturally, we should like to see the results of any decision in the Northern Ireland courts. Then, if we judged it necessary, we would naturally raise this matter in the House.
On the first part of the question, I too have been sent from time to time a number of allegations, and I have immediately asked that all of them be investigated. The G.O.C. has always said that any allegation will immediately be investigated. The problem is to get those who make the allegations to come forward and make them to any inquiry or to give their own evidence about the allegations. They are prepared, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to set them down on paper and sometimes to make them to other people, but they are very slow to come forward to make them to any inquiry. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that these allegations are quite separate from the question of the 14 cases in which the techniques were used for deep interrogation.

RHODESIA (ALL-PARTY DELEGATION)

3.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I said that I would report further to the House on the possibility of an all-party delegation visiting Rhodesia. Mr. Smith has finally replied that he would feel unable to agree to the visit of the delegation proposed. He gives as his

reason not only the strongly expressed opposition to the settlement of certain members of the proposed delegation, but also their alleged support for movements in Africa which make use of terrorist methods.
Since both the Labour and Liberal Parties have stated that they are not prepared to change their nominations to the all-party delegation, a position which I quite understand, I regret that there is now no point in pursuing the proposal further.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that this is not simply a matter affecting the Labour and Liberal Parties but is the cause of concern to the House as a whole? Indeed, will he further accept that since Mr. Smith's message is indicative of Smith's character and policy, the right hon. Gentleman's statement is central to relations between Britain and the Rhodesian régime?
In the light of that understanding, may I put three specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman? First, having reported Mr. Smith's message to the House, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what reply lie has sent to Mr. Smith's impertinence? Second what conclusion does the Foreign Secretary draw from Mr. Smith's attitude about the Rhodesian Front's likelihood of honouring any bargain that may be struck between Salisbury and Whitehall?
Third, does the Foreign Secretary realise that since he, unlike his predecessor, claims to have struck a bargain with the Rhodesian régime, he should be in a position to exercise some influence in Salisbury? When does he intend to do so?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I have always thought that if there was to be observation of the Pearce Commission from this House, that would be better done by an all-party delegation. I made that clear to Mr. Smith. I also made clear the fact that in this House it is the practice for parties to select their own members to take part in delegations and that therefore it was intolerable that the choice should be limited. Thus, my preference was for an all-party delegation, though Lord Pearce is getting on with his work successfully without observation.
I will answer the three specific points the hon. Gentleman put to me. The answer to the first is that I have told Mr. Smith that I regret his decision. [Interruption.] The answer to the second, about the honouring of any bargain, is that that is a different matter in relation to the settlement that has been proposed; he must put the whole of his authority and party behind it if the settlement is to be brought into the Rhodesia Parliament.
The answer to the third is that I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the only sanction I have—I hope he is not asking me to use it—is to withdraw the Pearce Commission, which is something neither he nor his right hon and hon. Friends want.

Sir F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be misleading to suggest that this represents an overall objection of hon. Members from this House going to Rhodesia? [Interruption.] Is it not a fact that very prominent right hon. Members from both sides of this Chamber, including one distinguished former Labour Minister and an equally prominent former Conservative Minister, have been to Rhodesia in the last few weeks?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that at least some of us feel that the more that Lord Pearce is allowed to get on with his job—without interference from political sources, including those who favour a settlement and those who are opposed to one—the better?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I have never thought that we should transfer our political differences from this House to Rhodesia, particularly while the Pearce Commission is there, or indeed at any time. It is true, of course, that hon. Members have been to Rhodesia in recent weeks.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that, although he has been unable during these negotiations with Rhodesia to get Mr. Smith to accept a modest demand that an all-party delegation from this House be allowed to see what is happening as part of the test of acceptability which is being carried out, there is any real hope or promise of Mr. Smith, once the negotiations are over and the formal ties with

this country are cut, accepting the more substantial demands contained in the agreement that has been concluded with him?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Smith has accepted the proposals for a settlement—[Interruption.]—and has agreed to put his authority behind them in his own Parliament. Having done that, I should have thought that he must keep the agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

Mr. Hastings: Is not the first objective to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people in this matter? Is that not the responsibility of this House as well as of the Government? Has anyone explained to my right hon. Friend or to the House how this delegation could possibly help?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, they have not, but if there were to have been a delegation, it should have been an all-party one.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly publish all the exchanges he has had with Ian Smith over this matter so that we may see whether or not the Foreign Secretary explained to Mr. Smith why I and many Members of my party believe that violence becomes inevitable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and often legitimate, but only if all normal methods of democratic change are closed?
Is he aware that the conduct of Ian Smith in Southern Rhodesia since the Pearce Commission went there demonstrates that this course is rapidly becoming the position? Will he acknowledge that if ever those who believe in equal rights in Southern Rhodesia are compelled to answer force with force, they will have been taught by masters who have been supported by the Foreign Secretary?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will ignore the hon. Lady's final remarks. I hope she will recognise that the whole purpose of this settlement is to enable peaceful democratic change to take place so that the Rhodesians should not have to resort to violence.

Sir Gilbert Longden: If my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be advantageous for an all-party delegation to go from


this House to Rhodesia—though in my respectful submission Lord Pearce is doing very well without such a delegation—why not put them in an R.A.F. aeroplane, fly them to Salisbury and see what Mr. Smith does next?

Mr. Thorpe: While not wishing to see my Chief Whip detained without trial and therefore dissociating myself from the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not feel that, in fairness to the House, he should go further than expressing regret to Mr. Smith, which is the sentiment one expresses if one is unable to accept a supper invitation?
Does he not think that he should make it clear that he received an undertaking from the two political parties that they would refrain from expressing an opinion publicly or from taking part in political activities while they were in Rhodesia and that he had accepted those undertakings as having been given in good faith?
Does he not believe that he should reject the suggestion that the members of the proposed delegation support terrorist methods and are themselves alleged to be terrorist sympathisers? [Interruption.] Is he aware that if the Pearce Commission concludes that there is support for the proposals that this House should be asked to grant £5 million for 10 years to lift sanctions, grant independence and give recognition to the Smith régime, this House should be given an opportunity to see how the Pearce Commission has worked, prior to such a conclusion being reached?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already conveyed to Mr. Smith the two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the last point he raised, I suggest we await the Pearce Report.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House as well as hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite are deeply disappointed that the Smith régime has felt unable to accept the presence in Rhodesia of an all-party delegation from this House? Will he present

our dissatisfaction to Mr. Smith over this?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have told Mr. Smith that I supported the idea of an all-party delegation to observe the Pearce Commission working. I will certainly tell him that I think he has made a mistake in this matter.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not a fact that, contrary to the impression which the right hon. Gentleman gave in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), which disparaged the value of an all-party delegation, the suggestion for an all-party delegation came specifically from the Foreign Secretary? Is it not the case, therefore, that his own suggestion has been rejected by Mr. Smith? Does not this conduct on the part of Mr. Smith affect the right hon. Gentleman's mind about the value of any bargain that may be struck with Mr. Smith?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not sure if the right hon. Gentleman was around when this was considered, but the position was that Mr. Smith rejected a request for a Labour Party delegation and a Liberal Party delegation. I have never been keen on Lord Pearce's Commission being observed, but if it was to be observed—[Interruption.]—I agree that could have been better expressed, I meant it in the sense that Lord Pearce could get on with the work of the Commission perfectly well without any external observation—but if there were to be observation, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I said that it should be an all-party delegation, that was the best form. This has now been turned down.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he told Mr. Smith that he was not very keen on the proposition he was putting forward?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I told Mr. Smith that he ought to accept an all-party delegation. He has not done so.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend know whether Ian Smith will accept a Conservative Party delegation made up of anti-Marketeers, which might then help the Government?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 6TH MARCH.—Debate on the Opposition Censure Motion on the framing of the European Communities Bill.

Motions relating to the Air Navigation (Noise Certification) (Amendment) Order and to the Lytchett Minster and Upton Bypass Compulsory Purchase Order.

TUESDAY, 7TH MARCH and WEDNESDAY, 8TH MARCH.—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.

THURSDAY, 9TH MARCH.—Supply (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition Motion relating to Wales.

Motions on the Post-War Credit Regulations and on the Livestock and Livestock Products Industries Order.

FRIDAY, 10TH MARCH.—Private Members' Motions.

MONDAY, 13TH MARCH.—Supply (16th Allotted Day). The topic for debate will be announced later.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's words, whatever difference there may be between the two sides of the House on the subject of the Motion on Monday, I think it right to express our thanks to him for moving so quickly to put it before the House.
Secondly, with regard to the Northern Ireland debate about which he has been asked, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have not pressed the Government unduly to hurry this debate, although after the previous legislation had to be rushed through we felt there should be an early opportunity for this? I do not know whether he is able to give an indication yet that there will be the intended statement from the Government before we ask for the debate in Government time which the right hon. Gentleman has offered. Is he aware that we trust it will not be too long delayed? On the other hand, it is better to get the right statement a day or two late than to rush the whole proceedings and perhaps get it wrong.

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his first point. On the

second point, I am grateful to him for his forbearance on this complicated matter. I will certainly note all that he has said and respond in the same way as he has put it to me.

Sir Robin Turton: I notice my right hon. Friend has not been able to include Motion No. 213 for debate next week.
[That this House, concerned at the deterioration of standards of civilised behaviour in Parliament, and aware that on certain occasions the rule prohibiting smoking in the division lobbies has not been observed, shall appoint a select committee to inquire into these breaches.]
Would he consider taking up through the usual channels the question of whether we could have a short debate next week on this important subject of the breach of the parliamentary convention on smoking in Division Lobbies? Otherwise, the health of hon. Members and possibly of some hon. Friends may be in danger.

Mr. Whitelaw: Not being a smoker, I am not very much aware of this, one way or the other. However, I note the importance which is attached to the convention. I am afraid I could not give time for such a debate next week. It is a convention of the House and one which the House obviously as a whole would wish to observe.

Mr. English: When will the right hon. Gentleman carry out the assurance he gave the House that we should have before us all documents necessary for the consideration of the European Communities Bill? In particular, when will he publish in the English translation and place in the Vote Office the decisions of the Council of Ministers which have not so far been published? Many of my hon. Friends and I have asked various Ministers about this on several occasions, last night and on other nights. When will this be done, or if it will not be done, why not?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman and I appear to be in dispute on this matter. I said that I would ensure that all documents necessary for consideration of the Bill would be available. I believe they are; he believes they are not: and we both appear to hold to our particular views.

Dame Irene Ward: As the Chief Constable of Northumberland has expressed the view that the proposed Home Office reorganisation of the police is impractical, could I ask my right hon. Friend for time for a debate on this subject? Since most North Country Members on our side of the House are Ministers none of them can make any comment on the chief constable's views. I would like to make known those views because I believe in the police and I think the Home Office is quite wrong, and I hope it will be defeated.

Mr. Whitelaw: As one of the North Country Members to whom my hon. Friend refers, obviously I could not agree with her last comment. Nevertheless, I note what she has said. I appreciate the importance of the subject. I am afraid I could not give time for a debate, but I will certainly call her views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps I missed something in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I had rather anticipated something which has not cropped up. He will know how helpful I have tried to be in this matter. Would he like to make a statement on the question of my Motion still standing on the Order Paper which I wish to have removed as soon as possible?
[That this House dissents from the intention of Mr. Speaker to address the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed by a style and title which he has disclaimed and therefore has no right to use; notes the assurances in the House by the Leader of the House and Mr. Attorney-General, respectively, during the second reading of the Peerage Bill in June 1963 that the effect of the Bill on the rules of the House would be that a Member disclaiming a peerage would be a commoner and would be described in the records of the House as Mr.; notes also that these were accepted as correct statements of the effect of the Bill by the House at that time; and regrets that, by reversing the decision of his predecessor which was made in the light of these statements and the advice then given to him by those officially concerned, Mr. Speaker should have impinged upon the privileges of both Houses.]

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman has not missed anything. What I should say to him is that I have had —as I think he knows—some further discussions on this matter. I am pursuing these discussions. I may have something to report to the House. If I do not, then of course I stand by my promise that there should be an opportunity for this debate before the Budget.

Mr. Burden: Further to the request of the Leader of the Opposition for an early debate on Northern Ireland, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early-Day Motion No. 218?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to make the Irish Republican Army an illegal organisation, in view of the fact that it is raising money in the United Kingdom and elsewhere with the express purpose of mounting murderous attacks upon the Forces of the Crown and civilians and thereby attempting to create a state of anarchy.]
This Motion is signed by myself and about 60 hon. and right hon. Members and asks for legislation to ban the Irish Republican Army. My hon. Friend will surely agree that it is quite unrealistic for this Government to continue to bring pressure to bear on the Republic of Ireland to increase their efforts to suppress the I.R.A., which is an illegal organisation in that country, while allowing it to remain legal in this country. It is also unrealistic to allow its agents and representatives to collect sums of money here which will be transferred to Ireland and used to prosecute the aims of the I.R.A., including causing the death and maiming of members of Her Majesty's Forces and of innocent people, and the destruction of property.

Mr. Whitelaw: In view of such recent happenings, it is natural that there should be strong feelings in this country and on all sides of the House on this matter. I am afraid I could not give time for a debate on this Motion next week although I fully appreciate the feelings which lie behind it. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland it is right that I should not say anything provocative one way or the other, but simply say that I note the Motion and fully understand the strong feelings behind it.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, apart altogether from the crisis over the Government's Common Market legislation which will be discussed on Monday, the Government have steered their legislative programme into a state of muddle of monumental and historic proportions? Is he aware that the conditions that are being imposed on members of the Housing Committee, for example, are quite intolerable and amount to an interference in the rights of those Members of Parliament to participate fully in the affairs of the House? There has been a breakdown in several of the other Committees; one had to be suspended this morning because hon. Members did not understand the meaning of the E.E.C. legislation and how it affected the Bill. Therefore, will the Leader of the House consider the state of legislation and recognise that he should be coming forward with suggestions to the House about which of these deeply offensive Measures he proposes to withdraw before the whole system seizes up and comes to a standstill?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member is prone to some exaggeration, and I certainly would not accept what he says. I would remind him, although I do not suggest for one moment that he was in any way responsible, that when his party was in Government that Government introduced a vitally important Measure in August and had to rush it through at grave inconvenience to this House in the early days of August. This Government have certainly not done that.

Hon. Members: Yet.

Mr. Whitelaw: As Opposition Chief Whip in the last Parliament, I know very well some of the muddles the previous Government got into. The hon. Gentleman was not responsible for them I know, but that does not entitled him to criticise this Government for what they are doing, which is much better than anything carried out by his party.

Mr. Emery: Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the fact that the House in Committee spent eight and a half hours earlier today on points of order? If this or some similar circumstance happens again, will he consider referring this matter for consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am all too painfully aware of what went on during the hours of last night, as are a great many other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. Not all are. I would be very careful before saying anything which might in any way be a reflection on the Chair. That is very important and should be considered carefully by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House. I do not wish to comment further, but that is something which certainly could be considered by the Select Committee if it thought fit. The sensible answer is that we did at the end of the night get on to the business of the Committee, and I hope that from there we can proceed in the normal manner.

Mr. Oram: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is some time since the House debated aid for and trade with developing countries? In view of the importance of this question and the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on this subject and the Government's policy towards it before Easter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in the subject and its importance. I am afraid that I could not provide time for a debate on this subject before Easter. I regret this all the more because it would be good for this House, the country and perhaps the world to know how much this Government and country are doing in such matters.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Without entering into the delicate question of the selection of Amendments for the European Communities Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether any representations could be made to the Chairman of Ways and Means to make somewhat earlier selections so as to give hon. Members more time to study the Amendments to be debated?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will, naturally, look into the point. I do not know fully the circumstances about the time allowed so far. I do know that the Chairman will be most anxious to give all the help he can. I am sure he will note what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but I will certainly call it to his attention.

Mr. William Hannan: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has now given consideration to the request made to him last week for the provision of time on the Floor of the House to debate the reorganisation of local government in Scotland? Is he aware that this matter has been dragging on since last February and that local authorities and administrative bodies are becoming anxious? Has he got anything extra to add?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I have not got anything further I can offer. I must point out that when censure Motions are tabled, whether dealing with the Chair or similar to that which we are to debate on Monday, time has to be found by the Government for debate, which makes it all the more difficult for me to find time for other debates.

Mr. Awdry: May I return to the question of the points of order? Should we not have a look at our Standing Orders to try to prevent these endless points of order obstructing the business of the House? I know that my right hon. Friend is being good-tempered and charming about it, but people are getting somewhat angry about the way in which the business is being disrupted.

Mr. Whitelaw: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I also note, and it is right to say it, that on these occasions tempers do sometimes run high. I say this in the most reasonable manner possible, but all of us are responsible entirely to this House, to our constituents and to ourselves for any action we may take at any moment of time. That is our responsibility for which we are answerable. If in the process any of us by what we do do harm to Parliament, that is something we would all regret, and I for one would like to make sure that such a thing does not happen in future.

Mr. Jay: To avoid further harm to Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, after Monday's debate, arranging what Sir Winston Churchill used to call a "parley on neutral ground" between the two sides to see whether we can discover an acceptable method of selecting Amendments on the European Communities Bill, since, clearly, orderly debate cannot continue if the method of selection is unacceptable to half the Committee?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must be careful here. The right hon. Gentleman is a considerable parliamentarian, much more experienced than I am, and he will be the first to appreciate that the selection of Amendments must be a matter for the Chair. If, in the conduct of Committee stage, with "parley" through the usual channels we can reach a more orderly debate, then we on this side of the House would be very ready to take part in such discussions.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week he said he would seek whenever possible to avoid an overlap of the work of the Standing Committees upstairs and the consideration of the European Communities Bill? Is he further aware that I and, I am sure, many others are immensely grateful to him for those sentiments? Could he say, in respect of the legislation which we shall have to enact to implement the £35 million that will be paid to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, that to avoid this overlap the Committee stage of the legislation will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has produced a very cunning proposal which I would need more time to consider. On his point about trying to avoid a clash between Standing Committees and the debates on the European Communities Bill, I said that I would do my best. This is something that has happened to all Governments. I did undertake that Committees would not sit on Wednesdays and that I would seek to have the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill on the Wednesday. That undertaking I have fulfilled.

Mr. Frank Allaun: No. The Housing Committee is sitting upstairs.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I have fulfilled that undertaking.

Mr. Skinner: You have not. I have not been out of this building at all since Monday morning.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: Bloody well call me, then, I will explain if you call me.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must be fair to me.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman lied to me on the phone.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member said that the Leader of the House had lied to him on the phone. That is not a parliamentary expression, and I really must ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner: I think it is necessary for me to explain the events—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want the hon. Member to follow this. He has used an unparliamentary expression, and it is my duty to ask him to withdraw it. If he does not, I am afraid that I shall have to ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Skinner: The Leader of the House, the other day when I raised this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not possible. I am afraid that the hon. Member has either to withdraw the unparliamentary expression or to obey my direction to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I greatly hope that my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw the remark that he made, because I am sure he will appreciate on reflection that that is the way in which our procedure could advance. If he could know that he would still have the opportunity —will he not?—of putting a question at a later stage, then I would hope that he would be willing to withdraw the remark which was an unparliamentary expression. He would still have his right to put a question later to the Leader of the House in accordance with the procedure of the House.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman must either withdraw the unparliamentary expression or withdraw from the House. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the unparliamentary expression; if he does not, I must ask him to withdraw from the House. I must warn the hon. Gentleman that if he will not obey my instruction to withdraw from the House then I shall have no recourse other than to name him; and the consequence if he is named and the Motion is carried is that he is

suspended from the service of the House for five sitting days. That is the consequence.

Hon. Members: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I really think the situation cannot be helped by points of order from other hon. Gentlemen. This is a matter between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Chair. This is an unpleasant task for the Chair. If the hon. Member will neither withdraw the expression nor withdraw from the House, then I tell him again that I am put in the very unenviable position of having to name him.

Mr. Skinner: On the basis, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have the opportunity—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but that is a matter which must be left to me in my discretion. There cannot be conditions about a matter of this sort. I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw his unparliamentary expression or else face the consequences.

Mr. Skinner: I withdraw the unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps before continuing my answer I might simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I am grateful for his withdrawal. If anything that I said on the telephone when he rang me—and, indeed, woke me up—at one o'clock in the morning was in his opinion incorrect or inconsistent with what I have said, I can understand that and I am grateful to him for the manner in which he has withdrawn.
As for the further point of my hon. Friend, I do not think that the Committee stage of this Bill is likely to be taken on the Floor of the House, but it is certainly a matter I will consider.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to accuse the Leader of the House of being a liar, but you will recollect that a couple of days ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he would not allow Standing Committees to be held on Wednesdays, so that they would not interfere with the E.E.C. debate; but it has happened


again. We sat until 6 o'clock yesterday morning, and 5 o'clock on the morning before, and there was a 27-hour session the previous Wednesday. We have no undertaking that it will not happen again.

Mr. Speaker: Again, this is a matter of comment or debate, but not a matter of order for me. It is a matter of representation, but not a point of order.

Mr. John Mendelson: Whilst I do not accept that the Leader of the House necessarily knows what went on earlier today in the Committee of the House, on the European Communities Bill, because he was absent from his duties for five and a half hours and therefore has not got the detailed knowledge that he otherwise might have had had he been present and before arguments were allowed to arise on questions that have been put to him, may I ask whether he realises that all this trouble is due to the fact that the Government have deliberately chosen to introduce a Bill that cannot be amended in its major portion and that the only remedy and the only hope of making any progress on this Bill is to withdraw it and introduce it in a new form?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I must make it perfectly clear that I was in the precincts of the House the whole of last night. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is in charge of the Bill I do not see that it demands my presence in this House the whole time. I was in this House for a considerable part of the evening. I think the hon. Gentleman is being extremely unfair. I do not accept for one moment what he is saying. As for what he says about the Bill; I do not accept that point. It has been argued at interminable length. He likes to hold that view, and I totally disagree with him: and there we shall have to leave it.

Mr. Rost: So that the E.E.C. Bill can make progress next week, can we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be present at least during a good part of the proceedings so that we may have some order and discipline from Opposition Members?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not a matter for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Skinner: It will be in the recollection of the Leader of the House that on Thursday, 24th February, in response to a question by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), he gave a pledge —that is probably as broadly as it can be interpreted—that there would be no Committee meetings on Wednesday.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the fact that the meeting was taking place on Tuesday with respect to points of order, I came down and held a consultation with him outside the Bar of the House in which he said that as a result of the likelihood of the Housing Finance Committee sitting until the early hours of the following morning he would take measures to see to it that there would be some curtailment in order that we could get some sleep, in order to take part in what is double duty, in serving on Standing Committees and at the same time taking part in the debate on the Common Market Bill? He will, of course, recollect that later that night—at ten minutes to one—when it became apparent that I would be sitting for many more hours—I had not then been to sleep for two days: I have not been to sleep for four, as it now stands—I informed the Leader of the House and he told me that the Minister in charge of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) had said:
In the last analysis it is not a matter for the Leader of the House to decide how long Committees sit; it is for me.
I reminded the Leader of the House of this particular information, and on the basis of the consultations we had had previously, several hours before, the Leader of the House like any good Tory, backed his Minister. That is a matter for him. But it was certainly a different conversation from the one that took place some time earlier.
Therefore, I am asking the Leader of the House, on the basis that some of us —certainly I myself—have never set foot outside this building since twenty past ten on the morning of Monday, when that Committee commenced, for some different arrangements next week.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is quite enough to be going on with.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that in all the circumstances I was extremely generous to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be equally generous to me. Some of my hon. Friends might say I have been too generous. I made it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that one of the two days allocated to the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill would be a Wednesday, when I understood Committees upstairs would not be sitting. That, of course, referred—and I think the hon. Gentleman would fairly regard it as referring—to the time on the Wednesday when the European Communities Bill would be before the House. I would have thought that a perfectly reasonable proposition. That is certainly what I meant, and that it what I stand by.

Mr. Skinner: When do we sleep?

Mr. Whitelaw: I might well ask the hon. Gentleman that, too.

Hon. Members: Try to answer.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman must accept that I have been extremely reasonable. I accept that he has, too. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been in a difficulty, but I stand by my particular undertaking, that the Committee on the Housing Finance Bill would not be sitting at the time of the Committee stage of the European Communities Bill on the Wednesday afternoon—and it is not. That is my commitment, and it is exactly what I carried out. I cannot say any fairer than that.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks to refer to a private conversation with me, of course there can be two views on a private conversation. I have never thought it particularly wise for private conversations between Members necessarily to be brought to the Floor of the House and treated as commitments. There is a danger in that. I should like to say that if I went too far in anything I said, I understand it. I do not think that I did, but I am trying to be as helpful as I can in all the circumstances.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Not now. I will rule on the privilege issue, and then the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) can raise a point of order. Even points of order must come in their proper place.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) drew attention to an article in the Spectator, which mentioned several hon. Members of the House and made certain allegations, or inferences about them. It is not for me to say whether the article reflected on any Member in such a way as to constitute a violation of the rights and privileges of the House. I have to say whether, in my view, the hon. Member's complaint should be given precedence as a privilege issue over today's business. It is my opinion that it should not.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask a question for my own guidance, Mr. Speaker? Would I be in order in commenting on a letter of advice I received from the Clerk of the Journals on this matter? If not, may I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker? I understand that one of the reasons why you have ruled as you have ruled is that the activities of the Member concerned were activities outside the House and not inside. But the fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do not think that my Ruling is debatable or questionable. If the hon. Member has any representation to make to me about any advice he was given, I will see him privately and discuss it with him. I cannot allow any public discussion of a Ruling on privilege.

Mr. Hamilton: We shall have a cup of tea over it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not take too much for granted. Mr. Arthur Lewis.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me on this point of order. I wanted to raise a point of order with you, and I


am sorry if I appeared to be impetuous but I wanted to do so within the hearing of the Leader of the House. I was afraid that he might leave the Chamber. My point of order may be for you to deal with or for the Leader of the House, or probably jointly.
Earlier this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, you will recollect that hon. Members on both sides of the House raised the question—I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to me.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am listening.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Leader of the House was not present, Mr. Speaker, when you were put into a difficult situation. This is a serious point. The Leader of the House has not only got the House and hon. Members into a difficult situation but also, with respect, he is getting you, Mr. Speaker, into a difficult situation. When the House met this afternoon we did not have Order Papers and could not know the Questions that were to be asked. That is an innovation that I have not known in 27 years' experience in the House. Hon. Members had to read out their Questions because there was no Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can shorten this. I quite agree that it was unfortunate and that we had a minute or two of difficulty during which one Question was read out by an hon. Member. I have made inquiries into this matter. I think that there was some misunderstanding in Her Majesty's Stationery Office which led to this difficulty. I do not think that any blame should be attached to any Officer of the House; but there was a misunderstanding which led to an unfortunate situation.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was not for a moment about to say that the Officers of the House were in any way concerned. I was about to pay tribute to them for the fact that when we have had difficulties in the past—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman rose on a point of order, but a point of order is not the appropriate vehicle

by which to pay tribute to the Officers of the House.

Mr. Lewis: But, with respect, Mr. Speaker, you interrupted me before I reached my point of order, and, therefore, you gave me the opportunity of saying that the Officers of the House have always been helpful. But my point is that the Leader of the House has done nothing about the situation, and I am concerned about next week. Next week we are likely to have problems again, not only because 150 hon. Members will be in Committee and unable to attend the House, but also because we probably will not get the proper papers and documents.
The Leader of the House has not laid on the Floor of the House the proper documents, and we cannot obtain our papers. Would you, Mr. Speaker, ask the Leader of the House to ensure that hon. Members are treated decently, as they have not been so treated since the E.E.C. Bill has been on the stocks? Would you request the Leader of the House to see that we are given some consideration during next week?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point.

TURKEY (TIMOTHY DAVEY)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether there is any constitutional way in which the House can discuss the matter of my 14-year-old constituent, Timothy Davey, who has been sentenced to six and a quarter years' imprisonment in Turkey? In view of the irresponsible Press comment made, which suggests that in Britain we are not accepting the right of the Turkish courts to deal with matters in accordance with Turkish law, it is desirable to make it clear that we merely hope for clemency and are not criticising the Turkish courts—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is an abuse. The hon. Member has all the appropriate methods of raising this matter, by Question, by seeking an Adjournment debate, and in other ways, which I am ready to discuss with him; but he cannot do it in that way as a point of order.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND STANDING COMMITTEES

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The co-ordination of the sitting of the Committee of the Whole House and all the other Committees—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of order for the Chair. It is a matter for representation through the usual channels, for a Motion or any of the other ways in which matters can be raised. It is not a matter for me. I have no control.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1972–73 (AIR), VOTE A

4.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Lord Lambton): I beg to move,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1973 a number not exceeding 113,500 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 13,590 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
When I had the honour to present the Air Estimates last year I made what was in retrospect a monumental speech. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General described it to me in private as resembling one of Gladstone's Budgets—by which he meant, I suppose, something very long and dull. But in presenting that speech I was following the precedents which had grown up through the years of giving a detailed account of all the affairs of the Royal Air Force.
Of course, in the pre-war years, which was an era of frequent equipment changes, this was probably necessary. But I must confess that last year I repeated many things which the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) had said the year before, and looking a little further back, I hope that he will not think me rude if I say that he was repeating, in turn, much of the content of previous years' speeches.
As in the defence debate last week, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement dealt with such equipment matters as were quite often previously discussed in this debate, what I should like to do today is not merely go in once again for repetition but rather to try to deal more fully with what has happened to the R.A.F. in other areas during the last 12 months. I shall, therefore, wait until tonight to answer equipment quesions which hon. Members may wish to put during the debate. I believe that in this way we can give more time to hon. Members who may wish to speak —although I cannot see them in the


Chamber at present. We can also get away from what in some degree has been almost an essay in annual repetition.
It has been a notable year for the Royal Air Force. It played a major part in the withdrawal of no less than 38,000 servicemen and their dependants and all their personal effects from the Gulf and the Far East. More recently there has been the much more limited but equally successful operation from Malta. I think it is no exaggeration to say that these large-scale movements were carried out by Air Support Command without any hitch and in my view this brings great credit to that branch of the Service. Elements of the R.A.F. remain in Singapore and in addition there will be regular visits to both the Far East and the Gulf. Apart from what I might call these real operations, I remind the House that only last December the Royal Air Force flew no less than 1,300 civilians from the Indian sub-continent and it is only right to draw particular attention to the exploits of the Hercules crews in Dacca.
In the middle of the war these men landed their aircraft with the very greatest skill on a runway still pitted with bomb craters and took off again with hundreds of refugees of all nations. In addition to these operations the Royal Air Force played its part in all the normal N.A.T.O. and national exercises. Some of these were designed primarily to maintain the high standard of competence in the Service. Others, such as the large joint Navy/Air exercises last autumn, were to test thoroughly our command and control arrangements and operating techniques. I am glad to say the exercises went off well.
I should like briefly to mention the improvements and additions which have been made in the front line. This year has seen the completion of the build-up of the Phantom Strike Attack Force, both in the United Kingdom and in Germany and the re-equipment of the long-range maritime reconnaissance force with Nimrods is also nearly complete. Puma helicopter deliveries will also be completed in the coming year, and we shall deploy more Buccaneers and Harriers to Germany. At the same time we plan to re-equip the Whirlwind squadrons in Singapore and Hong Kong with Wessexes and introduce a number of Shackletons in

the airborne early-warning rôle for which they are being specially developed. In the tanker rôle, work is proceeding on the Victor Mk 2 and in the close support rôle the outstanding capability of the Harrier is being further improved by the progressive re-equipment with the more powerful marks of the Pegasus engine.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Before the Under-Secretary leaves that point, can he say what has happened to the medium-lift helicopters which were designed to operate with the Harrier and which have been in and out of the various White Papers over the past six or seven years?

Lord Lambton: Broadly speaking, we did not have enough money to procure them, and the Harriers are working and can work without them. I agree though that if at some future date, the necessary finance is there they would be a welcome addition to the Air Force.
In Germany the provision of shelters which is to be financed from N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds will improve aircraft protection and this summer we shall progress to the contracting phase. We attach great importance to this programme. The introduction of the Jaguars in about two years will enable us to start transferring more of the Phantoms to air defence. Already we are purchasing enough Bucaneers to form an extra squadron. We have also announced our intention to order sufficient extra Nimrods to form another additional squadron and both these additions will mean a genuine increase in operational capability.
Looking further ahead at the next generation of combat aircraft I should like to report continuing satisfactory progress with the M.R.C.A. which is really to be the linch-pin of our future strike reconnaissance and air defence forces. Last summer's review with our German and Italian partners confirmed the validity of our earlier objectives as regards performance, costs and timescale. All three partners agreed that the project should proceed as planned and that a further review should be made at the end of this year.
Now I shall turn to something which is quite considerably in the news this morning—the Linesman system which was last week the subject of some comment from


the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). The Linesman system, which is part of our defence against the manned aircraft threat, consists essentially of improved radars and communications systems together with computer-based control facilities. The new radars and communications have been in service for some time and are operating very satisfactorily. But there has been a serious delay in bringing the centralised computer installation into operation because of difficulties in the development of software. Computer hardware has not been a holding factor but there was a serious under-estimation of the size and complexity of the very considerable task of computer programming for the main data processing system.
We now expect the computer installation at West Drayton to become operational towards the end of next year and this will be a considerable step forward. The hon. Member for Nuneaton suggested that the system was wholly dependent on eastward-facing radars. The main military radar stations are naturally on the East and North-East facing what we must recognise to be the main threat. But it also derives information from the modern civil aviation Mediator system in the West and South. These are not "souped-up" second world war radars. They are modern, advanced equipment and can contribute substantially to the defence system. We also get the benefit of the exchange of information with the N.A.T.O. system on the Continent and the system will also benefit from the information provided by the Shackleton airborne early warning aircraft coming into service this year.
Even when the computer system at West Drayton is operational I do not suggest that we will have reached the stage of perfection. We are naturally examining what further measures may be needed to supplement Linesman. The hon. Member referred to the vulnerability of West Drayton to conventional air attack. As has been explained computerised standby facilities are being provided in the Linesman system but we shall naturally consider whether other further measures are necessary. I do not think there is any particular party point to be made here one way or the other about a system which originated more

than a decade ago and the expenditure on which has been split among the last three administrations. There have been some changes in that period and it would be surprising if there had not been. We may well find we need to supplement the system in certain respects in the future. But none of this detracts from the value of the present system.
I should like now to turn to the rôle and organisation of the Royal Air Force. I think all hon. Members will agree with the point I made last year which I do not hesitate to repeat, that the most important task for the Air Force is to continue to improve its power and effectiveness. I will describe what we have tried to do towards this end. The message for the R.A.F. is a very clear one. We are working within a very limited budget and I think we must try to cut out everything which is unnecessary and to see that all the money that is spent is well spent. In the first phase of an economy project all commanders in chief have been asked to make substantial economies in the manpower they are utilising. A simultaneous drive has been launched in the Whitehall organisation. The savings must be found without detriment to efficiency.
The first phase of this project is nearing completion, although of course all the benefits will not be felt at once. But because of the resulting manpower economies the R.A.F. has already cut back on its recruiting requirements for next year. This not only offers a bonus in reduced training costs but also enables us to apply higher standards in the selection of recruits.
The second phase which is to follow will involve an intensive search in support and operating costs, and commanders-in-chief will be invited to take the initiative and examine critically every aspect of their operations. Of course, we cannot tell yet how this will go, but I hope the savings will be commensurate with those shown in the first stage.
Not the least value of these savings has been to bring home to everyone throughout the R.A.F. that money must be spent primarily on the front line. We must get better value for money.
Alongside these economy measures, and complementary to them, as I informed the House on 25th November last year, the main elements of Strike Command


and Air Support Command are to be merged. In paragraph 27 of Chapter 1 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates we explained that a single R.A.F. operational Command in this country will be set up by the end of 1972. I shall inform the House in more detail about this.
The new command, which is to be called "Strike Command" is designed to enable the front-line resources of the R.A.F. in the United Kingdom to be used with greater flexibility; to provide a single point of contact in the United Kingdom at Air Commander-in-Chief level with N.A.T.O.; and to effect financial and manpower economies. It will also make the R.A.F.'s operational Command structure in the United Kingdom more compatible with the other Services'.
The headquarters of the new "Strike Command" will be at High Wycombe, and will form on 1st September. The new command will comprise five Groups embracing the operational functions of strike/attack, air defence, maritime patrol, tactical and air transport. It will also include the H.Q. Military Air Traffic Operations.
The existing resources of Air Support Command, consisting of strategic and medium fixed wing transport aircraft, all offensive support aircraft and support helicopters, will be re-organised into two operational groups, the tactical Group and the air transport group. The latter will take the title "No. 46 Group". Its headquarters will be located at R.A.F. Upavon, when the headquarters of Air Support Command are disbanded there. Nos. 1, 11 and 18 Groups, which now comprise the operational elements of the present Strike Command, will remain largely unchanged and in their present locations.
As part of the overall reorganisation, the administrative support of units in No. 90 (Signals) Group is to be transferred to Maintenance Command on 1st May, 1972; this transfer will enable the new Command to concentrate upon its prime responsibilities. Detailed plans for the merger are now being worked out.
Present indications are that about 18 existing senior R.A.F. staff posts should be saved once the merger is completed and the new headquarters fully operational. In addition, there will be more

savings at lower levels resulting from the abolition of H.Q. Air Support Command.
There will be some decrease in the number of non-industrial civilian staff employed at Upavon, with some increase in the number employed at High Wycombe, but I cannot give numbers at this stage. However, they will not be considerable. No significant staff changes are expected at any of the other headquarters formations of the new Strike Command, nor will the reorganisation lead to the closure of any R.A.F. stations.
Now I should like to turn from these operational changes to speak of those in training. A comprehensive review of the part to be played by the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, has now been completed in the light of the development of the graduate entry scheme, and of decisions relating to aircrew training.
In consequence, the plan of the previous Administration to move the Officer Cadet Training Unit from Henlow to Cranwell at the end of 1973, and to establish the R.A.F. College as the centre for general Service training has been revised. Instead, it has been decided that the Royal Air Force College will, by 1975, undertake the general Service training of graduate entrants to the Service, and basic flying training of all graduate entrant pilots. It will accommodate the College of Air Warfare, which will be moved from Manby and will provide postgraduate navigation training and some refresher flying, in addition to continuing the professional training of all Engineer, Supply and Secretarial officers. The Officer Cadet Training Unit will remain at Henlow, and will continue to provide general Service training for other entrants to commissioned service. Some consequential re-deployments, aimed at making the most effective use of resources, are planned, which will free the R.A.F. stations at Upwood, Debden and Strubby. These redeployments will produce useful savings.
Further changes are coming about in flying training, which is obviously vital to the maintenance of the high professional standards of the Service. But it is extremely expensive, particularly when the time comes to re-equip, and we must therefore achieve a proper balance between the resources devoted to training and to the front-line. Recognising this, we decided to abandon the earlier plan to


use the Jaguar as an advanced trainer, and to substitute a less expensive aircraft. This switch made possible the additional Jaguar front-line squadrons.
As a result of our review of pilot training, we decided progressively to introduce earlier specialisation. This will mean that after a shorter common stage of basic training, pilots will be divided for advanced training into three streams —those selected to fly fast jet aircraft; those going on to multi-engined types; and helicopter pilots. This will be accompanied by a reduction in the number of stages through which pilots must pass during training, and an overall saving in training time.
The Jet Provost will continue for some years as the basic training aircraft. For the advanced trainer for fast jet pilots, in replacement of the Gnat and the Hunter, we have selected the Hawker Siddeley 1182. We have now decided that the engine for this aircraft—and this is the first time this has been announced—shall be an unreheated version of the Adour engine, which powers the Jaguar.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it or is it not true that some £10 million was spent on taking the after-burner out of that engine?

Lord Lambton: I cannot answer that question now, but if the hon. Gentleman gives me notice I shall try to find out.
In addition to its primary rôle as a jet trainer, the HS1182 will have a close-support capability. This is very important, because it means that we are not separating totally the training facilities and aeroplanes that can be used in an emergency in combat areas. Subject to the satisfactory completion of contract negotiations, the order for the aircraft will be placed very soon.
For multi-engined training, we have selected the Jetstream to replace the Varsity. With these new aircraft and the revised training pattern, we are confident the pilots can be trained more economically without loss of the essential high standards. I believe this is a step in the right direction. In addition, as hon. Members will know, we intend to buy a substantial number of Bulldogs for use in the university air squadrons in place of the Chipmunk.
I should also like to say something about our further studies on the use of simulators.

Mr. Dalyell: It might help us if we could be given the reasons against using the Viper 600 engine which would seem to many of us to be an ideal training engine. Why go for the Adour?

Lord Lambton: We found the performance was better, which would seem the best reason of all. It is very much a matter of opinion.
I should also like to say something about our further studies on the use of simulators in flying training.

Mr. George Thomson: The Minister has just made an important announcement about the HS1182. Could he give the House any indication as to the employment possibilities in the north of England?

Lord Lambton: They will be considerable. I will try to find out precisely what they will be and let the hon. Member know tonight. As I said, I should like to say something about the further studies on the use of simulators, about which I also spoke last year. We already rely on simulators to a considerable degree, and past research has shown their really obvious operational advantages: standardised and repeatable conditions; the ability to keep to a set training programme without delays arising from lack of air space, and so on. In the future, our research will be aimed at assessing, by means of controlled trials, the extent to which simulator time can be further substituted for real flying time. I need hardly stress the importance of this when one takes into consideration the cost of training pilots today. In this, we are co-operating closely with the United States Air Force, who are also involved in this research.
Last year, hon. Members may recall —especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson)—that I spoke at length on the subject of R.A.F. reserves. I assured the hon. Member then that although our limited resources made it impractical to maintain a flying reserve, a study was being undertaken to see whether there was a case for using reservists in other categories. The study looked at the adequacy of our reserves. It was thoroughly done,


and covered every task which it was conceivable that reservists could do, either in place of the regular Force or as a supplement to it. It showed unmistakably—and I must say disappointingly, but it is no use establishing facts if one is not prepared to admit them—that considerations of time and value for money would make it foolish for us to embark on any major expansion of our small paid reserve. That was really the answer which hon. Gentlemen got who looked into this some years ago. Before long, we shall know whether it makes sense to extend the activities of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force into certain additional support rôles.
At the other end of the scale, I should now like to deal briefly with something I mentioned earlier, which is of great importance to the House—raised recruiting standards. Without question, this has been a satisfactory year for recruiting. Our problems have been eased by two things, the success of manpower economy measures and the increase in the number of applicants. Now we are having to restrict entry numbers firmly. Our success could face us with certain problems, for at some future date there may well be shortages again. But to insure against that we would now have to recruit in larger numbers than would be necessary at the present time. What we are therefore trying to do is to select those applicants most likely to give long and useful service to the Royal Air Force. As I said, as a result of this, the standard of entry is noticeably higher than it was. Of course, the standard was always good and I must say that I think anyone who visits an airfield is always impressed by many things, not least by the maintenance of discipline with, at the same time, an almost total divorce from that drilling, barrack square atmosphere which once played such a considerable part in the life of the Service. Indeed, it seems to me when I go round now that the primary use of the main barrack squares in the R.A.F. is that of car parks. That is something which really shows the change there has been.
The calibre and qualifications of many members of the Force are staggeringly high. I never visit a station without being impressed by the quality of the men there and what they are doing. What is especially satisfactory is that this

"civilianisation" of the Royal Air Force has been achieved without any lessening of discipline. I am certain that with the further raising of standards, this will be maintained. However, there is no doubt that we will not in future be certain of drawing the men we really want unless we provide better living conditions. I have borne this very much in mind.
The House will know that all the Armed Forces are evolving new standards of accommodation which will satisfy this need. Old style barrack rooms are simply no longer acceptable. We have gone fully into what the young serviceman wants in the way of accommodation. What they really all want is a single room and recreational facilities—at any rate in places where they are going to have to spend a considerable time. The House will know, especially those who have served in my office, that these schemes must await further examination and agreement on costs. It really cannot be done quickly. The long term solution we are going for is to provide single rooms grouped together to provide flats, with a central washing and community area, for up to 12 airmen.
We were lucky that as a result of the expansion of the Air Force in the 1930s the Force has relatively modern and well-built accommodation which can easily be converted. Nevertheless, the long-term programme will take up to 10 years. This brings one up against the fact that there will be a number of airmen who might have to continue to live in large dormitory rooms for years to come. If anything can be done about it, that is not acceptable. Having seen in some of the R.A.F. stations I have visited, extremely intelligent divisions of large rooms under self-help arrangements, early last year I set up a Joint Air Force Department/ D.O.E. advisory study to see whether we could achieve greater privacy and better living conditions by the use of economic materials. The D.O.E. designers were co-operative and produced several excellent schemes to allow conversion of large dormitories into single cubicles or rooms, depending on the amount of space available at individual stations.
I must emphasise that these changes are short term and do not in any way prejudice the ultimate conversion to permanent standards, although wherever space permits we have been able by these


methods to convert barrack room blocks into six or eight rooms, of a standard which will ensure their usefulness for many years to come. We started this scheme last year, with rush plans to convert large dormitories in 53 barrack blocks to produce 2,271 single rooms. By the 31st of this month 40 of these blocks will have been completed, giving a total of 1,533 single rooms. If any hon. Members on the Opposition benches would like to see them I hope they will do so. It is planned to convert a further 33 blocks in 1972–73 to give an extra 1,607 single rooms.
All this conversion has been possible within the framework of our Estimates and by diversion of funds allocated for previous modernisation projects of too old-fashioned and ponderous a type, and we shall continue to press forward on these lines.
The result of this is that I hope, given reasonable luck, that we shall have completed by mid-year 1973 no less than 3,878 rooms of this type. The conversions have been greatly welcomed by the Service and illustrate what I am sure all of us who deal with this problem feel, that if we are to get good men today we must offer them a living style appropriate to the future, and not to the past.
I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and his staff in the Department of the Environment for the whole-hearted way in which they went into these improvements, the results of which, as I have said, have been very satisfactory.
I have tried briefly this afternoon—

Mr. Dalyell: As the Under-Secretary of State said that it was a matter of judgment, I will help the House by being explicit as to precisely what my problem is over the HS1182. If pilots are to be trained on the Rolls-Royce turbo-jet Adour engine, which is one of the most powerful engines in the world and built with an after-burner, they will kill themselves during training. The decision has been made against the Rolls-Royce Viper 600. The direct question which I should like the Under-Secretary of State to answer later is this. Is the after-burner being taken out of the Rolls-Royce Adour engine and is the cost of so doing about £ 10 million?

Lord Lambton: As I told the hon. Gentleman before, it is the unreheated version. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the last thing in the world we want to do is to provide planes which will kill our pilots. We want to get the planes which are most suitable for the different varieties of training, and this is what we set out to do. There is nothing the slightest bit sinister in these decisions. They have been worked out as the most likely ways in which to train effectively different types of airmen in the most economical manner.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister tell us the cost of changing the engines?

Lord Lambton: I will give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks tonight, if it is possible to do so. One cannot always know the precise costs, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are trying to get the right types of planes for training.
I have tried this afternoon to go through the main happenings to the Royal Air Force in the last year, and to outline the measures we have taken to ensure its continued effectiveness.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: As my hon. Friend appears either to be reaching his peroration or running out of steam, before he does so I should like to congratulate him warmly on the efficiency of the surveillance potential, exampled by the photograph of the disabled Soviet nuclear submarine in the Atlantic, accounts of which appeared in the newspapers yesterday. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are about 400 Russian U boats in commission, and does he therefore agree that his handful of Nimrods will have plenty to do?

Lord Lambton: I think the answer is yes.
I have told the House that, as a result of the increase in the number of Buccaneers and Nimrods, our efficiency will increase. Nevertheless, the last thing we want to do is to be in any way complacent.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence said in his speech last week that we are faced with an ever-increasing Soviet strength, and the policy of flexible response to which we have been committed since 1967 means that we and our allies must have forces to


deter conventional aggression, and that of course is the main reason for our defence expenditure today.
What I have been trying to do in this last year is to ensure that, by taking every possible step within the framework of the Royal Air Force, we have been able to make economies to increase the amount which can be spent on the front line, and this must be our continuous aim. We have a force which is served by men of the highest calibre, and the aircraft now in service are without doubt some of the finest in the world. I feel, therefore, that we can look forward with optimism to increasing the efficiency of the Royal Air Force and keeping it as a force which, if not as large as the forces of the two great powers, is yet one which can most effectively fulfil the roles to which N.A.T.O. attaches the greatest value.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister is to be congratulated on the way in which he has probed the catalogue of ironmongery which he and I in the past in turn have presented to the House when we have introduced the Royal Air Force Estimates. I know the pressures which are brought to bear upon whoever is in his seat. Every branch of the Air Force wants a mention, and fights to a bitter death to ensure that it has its rightful mention in what is after all the Air Force's day in this House. The Minister, I am sure, has had a difficult and painful task in editing the contributions which have come from every corner of the Air Force Department in the fight to be represented in his speech. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who has served in the same office as the Minister, nodding in agreement.
Although the Minister's speech today has been perhaps a little shorter than usual, the Minister who winds up will perhaps have time to deal in more generous terms with the pertinent points which will be raised on this side of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who is to wind up for the Opposition has several points of particular significance to raise. I know from 11 years' experience, on and off, of winding up from this Dispatch Box that the one who winds 
up does not have much of a reply from the Minister who succeeds him. I hope that the Minister will deal with any points which cannot be replied to in winding up by writing to the hon. Members concerned.
The Minister has said that this has been a notable year for the Royal Air Force and I fully endorse that statement. He mentioned in particular the rôle of Transport Command, the withdrawal from the Gulf, and Malta, and he commended the exploit of the Hercules crew in Dacca, which I fully endorse.
The Minister has inherited a first-class Transport Command. When calls are made on Transport Command, whether they be major or minor, we know that Transport Command is able to respond to them. I am sure the House warmed to the frankness of the Minister in replying to the point put to him by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) about the medium-lift helicopter. I hope I am not paraphrasing him wrongly, but my impression is that he said that this would be an excellent and welcome addition to the use of the Harrier aircraft when there was the money. This, of course, is always the problem of any Minister in a Service Department—or, indeed, in any Department—and always when there are cuts to be made or when expenditure has to be undertaken, it is those on the equipment side who have to suffer. But what is welcome is the conversion of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and indeed of the noble Lord in another place, to the whole concept that there is a ceiling to defence expenditure and that defence expenditure has to be contained within that ceiling.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Not ceiling—target. There is a difference.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. Target or ceiling, I suggest he re-read the speech which the noble Lord made in the other place. I am sure that the impression the Under-Secretary gave to the House today was that there are many other things he might like to do but a ceiling had been imposed—a target, if the hon. Gentleman prefers. This was completely and wholly different from the strictures from this side of the House when the present Government were in Opposition. Time after


time, led by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), there were bitter complaints about the way we presented our Estimates and organised defence exepnditure, rejecting completely the whole idea of a ceiling. Therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman wants to call it a target or a ceiling, at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Wilkinson: The R.A.F. always hits its target.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can go on with his game. What I am saying is that the Government have now realised the problems that face their spending departments, and basically they are doing what they can with whatever money the Cabinet allows them.
My speech will be brief because I am conscious of the danger of repeating what I have said either here or on the other side of the House over a number of years. I want to deal first with organisation and recruiting, secondly, with some of the present equipment in the Air Force and, thirdly, with research and development and new provisioning.
We have had the statement by the Under-Secretary about the new operational command in the United Kingdom for the Royal Air Force which is to be set up on 1st September, 1972, and which is to cover the whole of the United Kingdom and to be formed from the main elements of Strike and Air Support Commands. The object, we are told, is the more effective use of the front line of the United Kingdom, and I am sure this will mean better interface with the other Services and with our commitment and responsibility to N.A.T.O.
In connection with one obvious and logical difficulty, as I see it on the information available to us, perhaps we may be told what are the expectations of manpower and financial economies, particularly in the higher ranks, from this change in structure.
As regards recruiting, I am glad to see that the good trend has continued. As I told the House on the last occasion on which I presented the Air Estimates, I saw the beginning of distinct signs of improvement, and the impetus which I had seen beginning was maintaining itself in the last few months before the presen-

tation of those Estimates. My reading of the figures which have been presented this year is that within the needs of the Air Force this has been an excellent year. But when one looks at the minuses in the table setting out Air Force recruiting we see that there has been a lower demand by the Air Force and this, in turn, has meant that it has been able to turn people away because it has been able to demand a higher standard. That will have its effect on the kind of Air Force we have. The fact that the Air Force is able to be more selective is welcomed.
I also welcome the remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State on the subject of accommodation. I have been to many airfields and have seen much of the accommodation of the Air Force from one end of the country to the other —and, indeed, the accommodation for all the other Services—and the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to tell the House that in order to get good men today provision has to be made in a style suitable for the future.
There has been a substantial increase and improvement over the years in the standard of life that ordinary people right through the community demand, and the Services cannot be divorced, in terms of accommodation or anything else, from the standards of the community as a whole. One sees this in the improvements in heating and lighting, and in the whole philosophy of improvement grants which successive Governments have maintained in order to improve housing generally. That must be reflected in the accommodation and the privacy which Servicemen require and demand today. I am sure that that will be reflected, in turn, in the calibre of the men who come forward.
One of the tragedies is that while this can be done for one service—the Royal Air Force—great difficulties arise in some of the other Services, particularly the Royal Navy. Without going out of order, a point of major significance to the other Services is the question of the accommodation that can be provided in one and not in another. Anybody who has been on board ship will know the severe limitations in accommodation. This is exceedingly hard on petty officers and people of similar rank who have


reached a certain age and seniority and, in financial terms, get substantial rewards. Because of the sheer size of the Fleet and the ships they operate not a great deal can be done to ensure that they have more privacy and better accommodation. I know that over the years the other Services have tried to do what they could, but this is obviously a point that will have to be borne in mind when looking at the whole problem of recruiting for the Services.
I am aware of the difficulties that may arise in the future, about which the White Paper and the noble Lord strike a note of warning, namely, that it is not going to be easy to maintain and sustain recruitment at its present level. The number of young men of recruiting age is declining, and, of course, there will be the result of the problem of the raising of the school leaving age.
It would be helpful if in some White Paper—perhaps next year's Defence White Paper—the Under-Secretary could give the House a forward look at the needs of the Air Force over the next few years. The expression "corporate planning" is one of the new expressions in industry. It might be of help as an element of corporate planning if we could have an indication of the likely needs of the Air Force—and, indeed, the other Services —and the types and skills that will be needed.
One of the things of which I am conscious is that at the n.c.o. level the Royal Air Force tends to become more than a little heavy. The age structure may well be out of balance. This is generally accepted as a danger, and may be more of a reality than Ministers are prepared to acknowledge. Perhaps we could have a word about this in the course of the winding-up speech, and some indication of the likely forward needs of the Air Force, which perhaps could be set out in next year's White Paper.
In our time we saw a substantial degree of rationalisation between the Services, in terms of some of their functions. I should like to know whether there have been any innovations in that field, and any new ideas or studies to see whether savings could be achieved by one Service doing the work of others in certain fields. Has any progress been made in this respect since we left office?
I turn to the question of equipment. We have been told about the increased price of the Buccaneer and Nimrod. I am sure that both have been strongly welcomed by the Royal Air Force. I appreciate that the decision on Nimrod had to be taken because the production line was coming to an end, unless there was to be a new buy-in. That must be a matter of great importance to Ministers.
In the past one has heard about the excellent progress of various aircraft and the potential market for them—regrettably after the production line has closed. What progress has been made in the sale of Nimrod? A great deal of work went into the negotiations to try to sell this remarkable aircraft. Have any extra orders been placed for this aircraft to give the Government a breathing space, in order to ensure that present needs are catered for? What are the sale prospects for Nimrod in other parts of the world, particularly Canada?
The Sunday Telegraph of 12th December last carried a report about the High Wood exercise which took place over 11 days in December. I should like to know the Minister's reactions to what the air correspondent of that newspaper wrote, namely:
One of the most important defence exercises for a decade has revealed acute shortages in R.A.F. front-line strength. The exercise, called High Wood, ran for 11 days … The main object was to show that the R.A.F. could protect the Fleet hundreds of miles from home bases and in this it was successful. To do it, however, R.A.F. Strike Command had to use every plane available. Pilots flew as many as four sorties a day and ground crews worked round the clock. Some fighter crews spent more than five hours in the air, the planes being refuelled in flight. The operations revealed shortages of Buccaneer low-level strike planes, airborne tanker aircraft. Nimrod maritime reconnaissance planes and fighters to protect British airfields and facilities.
Is that kind of comment acceptable?
I am wondering whether we can afford the luxury of allowing Nimrod to rotate between Britain and the Far East. Therefore, I should like to know how far the new order for Nimrods is being implemented to deal with the present shortage, and also what has happened to the undertaking given by the Government to send some of these aircraft to the Far East.
The White Paper mentions collaboration between Britain and her allies, particularly in Europe, and makes the point


that this continues to grow in importance. We can all think of projects of collaboration which were sponsored during the life of the Labour Government, but I cannot see any new project of collaboration to report at present. There is a shortage of money for defence, and this problem is also being experienced by our allies. If the Government believe so much in collaboration; and pay lip service to the idea, some indication should be given in the Air Estimates to show what collaboration is being undertaken.
I welcome the statement that bi-national arrangements for the Anglo-French Jaguar aircraft are being made with the French Government. We are told that each country should procure and hold a joint stock of items of its own manufacture to meet the requirements of both countries. That is eminently right and proper, and I hope that other improvements in this respect are attempted. What happened to the joint arrangements with France over helicopters? This relates to the general policy of the Government in regard to the stocking of joint items which are needed to support new aircraft and which are the product of joint collaborative arrangements.
A few weeks ago an exchange took place between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who takes a great interest in these matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), on whether aircraft should be serviced within or outside the Services. I have invited the Minister to look into this problem. There is a deeper problem than just the point involving whether this should be done within the Service or outside it. The real problem is the speedy change-round in the engines which need to be fitted and supported to waste the least amount of time. Millions of pounds are tied up in capital.
In the last few weeks that I was at the Ministry—for obvious reasons, I will not go into detail on this matter—I was horrified at the amount of time it took to transport engines from B.A.O.R. to this country, to be tackled by Rolls-Royce. I am not directing criticism one way or the other, but I was surprised at the time it took to take out an engine. It sometimes takes months for an engine to be returned to this country and to be made available again in B.A.O.R. During my

time at the Ministry high level studies were taking place on this subject. Because of the events that occurred on 18th June I was not able to see the results of those studies.
I hope that the Ministers will be able to give some assurance on this matter since I referred to it in my speech last year. This is an important subject, and does not involve small items of expenditure. We all know how important it is in defence expenditure to get maximum value for money. Savings in time mean saving vast amounts of capital investment, running to millions of pounds. I know from experience that in regard to engines—and, indeed, 101 other things—there can be delays. It is hoped that such delays, in terms of servicing, and so on, can be avoided. I know all the arguments about the difficulties of getting overtime work and the problems of contractual arrangements, but I am more convinced than ever that there is need for improvement on this score. I shall be very disappointed if there has been no improvement since I last raised this subject.
I turn to the future, and my remarks relate to research and development, and particularly to M.R.C.A. In the course of my speech on the Defence Estimates —it being a winding-up speech I did not expect a winding-up answer—I expressed deep concern about the general increase in research and development costs of 50 per cent. over two years—now running at £330 million—a complete reversal of past trends. There may be substantial disagreement on the question whether the cost should rise to £330 million, but the least that we could expect was a more detailed explanation in the White Paper for the increase from £220 million to £330 million in the course of two years.
There are Committees upstairs looking with fine-tooth combs into expenditure on social projects and other matters. They try to collect and save candle ends. We are here dealing, with a vast amount of expenditure. I commend the Government's brevity; indeed, I would accord them the full luxury of perhaps double, if not three times, the space that they have taken in the White Paper to set out the bare facts of the increase in expenditure.
I am sure that the Minister will say, "There it is. You were the Minister


responsible for Defence Equipment. All this expenditure is the result of your good or evil deeds "—from whatever point of view one looks at it. This is an answer which, on its face, appears attractive, in that expenditure on any project carried out over a number of years, as most of these are, tends to rise from fairly modest amounts in the initial pilot stages to more substantial amounts later. I accept and understand that argument. However, this happens in every sphere of equipment.
Every bet that is made by the Ministry of Defence on a particular piece of equipment to initiate initial studies does not mean that it will back that horse to the end of the day. If that were the case it would back only winners, and never take any risk to find new pieces of equipment on the edge of the horizon of knowledge which involve an element of gambling.
There were difficulties in the past which we had to face concerning items of expenditure having been initiated, with expenditure increasing, as usual, at a far greater pace than people anticipated. Hardly any estimate on research and development keeps within the original cost. That is one of the harsh facts of life for any Minister of Defence.
When expenditure on a piece of equipment begins to gallop, one may have to look at the totality of the expenditure on defence and, perhaps, take a pruning knife to spread it out, limit it, or cut it out altogether, if it means that the provision of other equipment or necessary provisioning for the Services will suffer.
Despite the general welcome to new equipment throughout the Services, when they see these large figures going through the House unchallenged I am sure that many other parts of the Services, which have been crying out for more money over the years, will be far from happy if we do not ask for full particulars of the items concerned. The balance has again gone wrong between research and development in the military and civilian spheres. We were proud of the way that we changed that balance, so that the trend was going the other way, to ensure the better utilisation of resources in the interests of the country. Therefore, we deserve a better explanation than we have had.
One point which concerns me, to which attention has been drawn recently, is that there may be a hump in defence expenditure in a few years, with substantial expenditure on the M.R.C.A., on the one hand, and on through-deck on the other hand; and at some stage replacement of our larger air transport planes will be necessary. It may be that difficult decisions will have to be taken. I should like to know how far the Government have faced the problem of the coinciding of major expenditure—how they will ensure that it will be catered for, and how they will evaluate rival claims at any one time.
Without the M.R.C.A. the Royal Air Force would be in an almost impossible situation from the mid-1970s onward. That is why everyone in the Service is firmly determined that it shall come into operation. Having played a small part in the beginning of this project, I watch it with great interest. The Royal Air Force remains convinced that, despite statements to the contrary, the M.R.C.A. will be capable of coping with virtually anything put against it in the rôle which it is intended to fulfil. It is more than an aeroplane; it virtually represents the survival capability of the Royal Air Force and the British military aircraft manufacturing industry in the years ahead.
We had a statement from the Minister in the course of his speech this afternoon. However, I think that we deserve a fuller statement—perhaps a White Paper—giving a broad analysis of how this plane is getting on; whether the original estimates are being adhered to, what are our present needs, and whether they have been changed in any way.
Before the debate commenced I read a statement made by the Minister in the course of his winding-up speech last week, in which he said that he expected that a statement would be made in July last year. None was forthcoming. I think that there was a statement in September. I suggest that there should be regular statements to the House by the Minister so that we may know exactly how this aircraft is getting on at different times.

Lord Lambton: There was a statement last September.

Mr. Morris: I am conscious that a statement was made last September, but it was not the statement indicated by the


Minister to be made in July. We expected that a statement would be made to the House in July. I appreciate some of the problems and delays which can occur. However, I hope that in future, at each of the review stages—perhaps we may be reminded of the review stages—a statement will be made to the House, because this aeroplane is of fundamental importance to the Royal Air Force. We should be informed, step by step, how satisfied the Government are about the progress of this aircraft, and whether they are still adhering to the original estimated ordered numbers. I have read the detailed criticism of the contractual arrangements. I should like to know the Government's views on them and on the arrangements and agreements entered into with our co-partners in this scheme.
We had a statement by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in November on the allocation of radar and of 10 major avionic equipments which have been selected since the radar decision, telling us that British firms will be prime contractors for six. I understand that there is dissatisfaction by some of the firms about the progress which has been made in the selection of equipment. Certainly it was varied in the autumn, and some of the firms were far from happy. Are the Government reasonably happy about the arrangements which have been made? Are they happy that the arrangements are the best that can be made for the Royal Air Force? Has there been any delay in the estimated time for the M.R.C.A. coming into operation? The original date was 1976 for this country and 1975 for one of the planes for West Germany, but I notice that the Minister of State said towards the end of March that it would start coming into service in the second half of the decade. Has there been any slippage? Has there been any change in the original ideas?
We have read reports in the Press of the amount of money involved and of the fact that, other than normal inflation, the airframe costs seemed to be keeping to the original estimates. But there is an impression in some parts of the Press that there has been more escalation in the engine costs than had been allowed for under normal inflation, contrary to the experience on the airframe side.
Those are some of the matters about which we should like more information. We are not dealing with small amounts of money; we are dealing with hundreds of millions of pounds. We are dealing with the most significant and important piece of expenditure for the Air Force in the whole of this decade. It is not a matter to be dismissed in a few words. The House should be told in as detailed a manner as possible. I appreciate the security problems involved. However, one reads more and more details in the Press. I know the point made time after time by the hon. Member for Woking about the disclosure of full information, and I understand his view. I believe that the time has come when we should be told at what stage we can have the fullest possible information.
I am sure that it will be the wish of the House to endorse the remarks of the Under-Secretary, to wish the Royal Air Force well in whatever part of the world it may be, and to congratulate it on its many achievements in the past year.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: At the beginning of this Session, I placed myself under a self-denying ordinance in the hope of completing the Session without making a speech lasting more than 10 minutes. So far, I have kept to it. However, I hope that I shall be forgiven today if I delay the House a little longer. There does not seem to be tremendous pressure on Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, if I may put it that way. The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) also raised a number of interesting matters about which I had intended to speak in any case, and it would be discourteous of me not to develop them.
I wish that we could find a different way of debating the affairs of our defence Services. To crowd all the defence debates into so short a compass suggests a sudden disinterest in the Services on the part of this House. However, many of us are fortunate enough at different times of the year, especially during the summer Recess, to get about a bit outside this country and to see something of the Services in action. At the end of last year my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and I were amongst those lucky


enough to do this in Cyprus. There, among other things, we saw at Akrotiri the largest Royal Air Force Station in the world.
I wish that it were possible for this House to spend two half-days or perhaps a whole day debating practical defence matters before the turn of the year, especially before minds have been made up about what is to go into the following year's Estimates. I regret that we have this concentration of debate into so short a period. If we cannot have a Committee on Defence at least let us have some flexibility in the way in which we debate defence matters in this House.

Mr. George Thomson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, there is now no need to have these Estimates debates before the Budget, as was once the case. They can be spread over the year. I suggest that it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to press strongly on his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. If he does he will certainly have the support of the defence spokesman on this side of the House.

Mr. Onslow: Long may this amity continue. I remind the House that we did not debate the R.A.F. until April last year because of something to do with the date of Trafalgar Day, the movements of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), and the need to time the debate on the Naval Estimates accordingly.
This is not, in fact, a bad moment at which to have a debate about the R.A.F., since it gives us an opportunity to say nice things about the Government. I am always glad to do that. I am especially glad that in recent months my right hon. Friends have put so much work in the way of the defence industry in the shape of orders for the Nimrod, Jetstream, Bulldog, and the additional Buccaneer Squadron. I hope that whoever deserves the credit on the Treasury Bench will take it. He deserves generous thanks.
I shall also be generous to the right hon. Member for Aberavon for his frankness in asking the Government to comment on the M.R.C.A. contractual arrangements. I suspect that somewhere in the recesses of the Ministry of Defence there runs a jingle which says, "Healey and Benn, never again." I think that the

original arrangements which were drawn up for the M.R.C.A. project are not of a kind that we should like to repeat. Some improvement must be found in these arrangements if ever we are again to go into such a project, with special reference to the protection of areas in which British know-how is sensitive and most important to maintain.
I intend to deal with only two main matters, but first I want to make a passing reference to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), whom we are glad to see on the Front Bench opposite. When the hon. Gentleman sat on the back benches he sometimes used to win the reputation of being an amiable eccentric, however, now that he has moved to the Front Bench he has lost a great deal of his amiability. When he intervened earlier he displayed a carping attitude to everyone else's opinions which was not worthy of an old Etonian—if I may say that on behalf of all old Harrovians present.
I want to deal first with repair and maintenance work in the R.A.F., with special reference to airframe repair and maintenance. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will recall that we have had a number of exchanges on the subject. On 20th January, I put a Question to by hon. Friend. In answer to my supplementary question my hon. Friend said:
I hope that there will be a rising trend in the amount of airframe repair work that goes to industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 648.]
That is most certainly a hope that I share. On 17th February, I put another Question to my hon. Friend—the one to which the right hon. Member for Aberavon referred. In reply to my original Question, my hon. Friend said:
The allocation of repair work is constantly under review and we are always trying to get the balance right.
To my supplementary question, my hon. Friend replied:
I can only repeat that we are only too anxious to look at every side of this matter." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 600.]
I invite my hon. Friend to consider this matter with the needs of the airframe industry on the one side and the capability of the aero-engine industry on the other side very much in his mind. There are two interlinked problems.
On 27th January of this year my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me, in answer to a Question, that in the course of the last nine years the total work force at R.A.F. engineering maintenance units had risen from about 5,700 in 1962 to just over 9,000 in 1971. He added:
The increase in numbers over the period is due to the gradual centralisation of work in Maintenance Command from Operational Units."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1972; Vol. 829, c. 504.]
Though no doubt that is true, there is also a strong impression in the industry that the increase in number is due to a growing retention of work in maintenance units of a kind which was formerly sent back to the manufacturers, and this is causing a great deal of alarm to the manufacturing side of the industry.
When I first tabled my Question in January I received a letter from someone in the business warning me that the answer that I might get would paint a rosy picture. He said that whereas statistically the situation might look encouraging for industry it was distorted by the work on the Victor tanker conversions, which is a once-for-all exercise.
He pointed out that it did not make much sense for the R.A.F. to claim operational need to maintain substantial capability within its own control in conditions where the most obvious threat was a very short war but if we were likely to face a war of attrition, there was no doubt that it would be of the greatest importance that adequate capability to back up the R.A.F. should exist inside civilian industry.

Mr. Wilkinson: That is just the point, is it not—that the Royal Air Force and its posture predicates a three- or four-day war, that this is equally a reason why there should be no reserves at all, and that it is equally a weakness?

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have a chance to develop that argument. If there is to be a three- or four-day war it does not seem to matter very much, operationally, who does the five-day repairs. It is a somewhat academic matter. We might as well let other questions decide our priorities.
The situation seems to sum itself up like this: there is a loss of confidence in

the airframe industry in relation to the Air Force attitude to maintenance and repair matters. I am sure that the Minister of State and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be aware of this, because they have taken part in many discussions on that subject. I might also point out that the confidence of industry is not increased when work on refurbishing the Air Force VC10s goes to British European Airways.
That is one side of the question. The other is that there is serious evidence of a loss of efficiency to the R.A.F. on the engine side. Anyone who has read the Second Report of the Expenditure Committee will have seen in it some fairly disturbing evidence—among the asterisks —about the state of the Spey engines in the R.A.F. Phantoms. I will not read it out, but Question 1754 paints a fairly alarming picture. In that, the reply from the R.A.F. side contains the following:
… there is a just adequate supply of the Spey 202 available to use.
That subject has received some prominence in the Press. The Sunday Telegraph had a story about it last week. I believe that it is generally conceded that the story which appeared there is wholly accurate.
Certainly, there seems to be an impression among the journalists who keep an eye on these things that matters in this part of Rolls-Royce have got back to being nearly as bad as they were just before the company collapsed. I do not know whether this is accurate—I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on it —but when people say, "You must not knock Rolls-Royce because they have had a hard time and have only had a year to pick up the pieces," I feel inclined to retort, "A year is a year, and it is about time they had some improvement to show for the way in which they are handling a problem with whose existence they were perfectly familiar and which they should by now have gone some way towards solving."
There is not nearly sufficient centralisation on the company's side in the way in which it tackles the question of R.A.F. engine overhauls. There is no good reason why it should not have a centralised engine overhaul unit for that service. This is something that the company should consider, along with some hatchet-swinging among some of the middle


management who have managed to cling on from the bad old days. I have never thought that the top management was necessarily the only blameworthy part of the company.
When this situation is considered, particularly on this engine, we have to remember that this engine is also a product of a Healey-Benn decision—a decision that Phantoms had to be bought for the R.A.F. to make up for all the aircraft of British manufacture which had been cancelled since 1964. All of a sudden, for offset reasons, the inspiration occurred to someone—I know not who, and do not wish to know—that they should take a civil engine, cobble an after-burner on the back and hope for the best. Not surprisingly, bits are now beginning to fly off.
I want to know whether, as a result of the failures which are being experienced with the Spey Phantom, any lives have been lost. I have seen reports of more than one Phantom lost in recent months. I am told that it is unlikely that this failing will cause a fatal accident in flight but again this is something upon which the House has a right to seek reassurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he can answer this. I am sorry if I have seemed flippant in referring to the white heat of modern technology; this is a serious matter and I want it to be taken seriously.

Mr. Dalyell: On the issue of Rolls-Royce, there was an Adjournment debate at some length on Tuesday night, when the Minister for Aerospace confirmed in some sense some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is saying, which worry all of us. Centralised repair is a highly "specialist job. Some of us went to B.O.A.C. yesterday morning. Anyone who goes there sees the highly specialised nature of working on any engine. It would seem sensible that B.O.A.C., which is doing the VC10 anyway, should do it for the Services too. Does not that commend itself to the hon. Member?

Mr. Onslow: I was coming to that point, only in an even broader sense. I do not confine it to the VC10. B.O.A.C. has at Treforst one of the best engine maintenance units in the country. It overhauls American engines for foreign airlines at the kind of speed which should make Rolls-Royce blush with shame. I

know of no complaints about its competence in this field. If work is to be put in the way of the nationalised corporations there is no reason why it should not be engine work. There is real scope here for increased professionalism and efficiency.
There is also a trouble about the system itself. Once upon a time I drove tanks with Rolls-Royce engines. If anything went wrong, we had to send for the man from Rolls-Royce who took it all that way back to his base workshops. The message usually came back that the plugs were loose, or something minor of that sort. It occurred to me that that was not very cost-effective. A similar situation prevails in relation to these engines. If an engine goes back to the manufacturer. I suspect that it goes through the whole overhaul process, even if it needs only a sharp tap with a hammer. There are substantial areas here where we could achieve flexibility and economy.
My hon. Friend should change his approach. We should not altogether disparage the idea of running the R.A.F. as a military airline, which is what most European countries do. One of the main anxieties of B.A.C. is that in its co-operation with its French partners in the Jaguar, it has found that the Breguet Company is being set up as the Jaguar maintenance unit for the French Air Force. Not only has that advantages for their Air Force; it also creates a situation in which there is so much more additional capacity in the civil company that B.A.C. will be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis its competitors if it is not treated in the same way by the R.A.F.
The same thing holds true for other collaborative projects, the M.R.C.A. in particular. Apart from anything else, this should be investigated again by my hon. Friend. I also believe—I respond here to something that the right hon. Member for Aberavon said—that this is the kind of thing that the Public Accounts Committee should be looking at. I prefer that to the Expenditure Committee, because the P.A.C. has the staff which would be needed to conduct an inquiry of this kind, and there is already, I think, a feeling among the membership of that Committee that this is something about which we should be thinking seriously.
I refer finally to the Harrier. In doing so I shall not detain the House for long. Two substantial mentions of the Harrier appear in the White Paper. One is on page 14, which talks about
The capability of the Harrier … being improved by progressive re-equipment with more powerful marks of Pegasus engine.
That mention is encouraging. The next appears earlier, on page 10, where we are told:
The courses open include the design of a new aircraft or the development of the operational capability of the existing Harrier for deployment at sea. The former would give a better performance but would cost more and require a longer period of development. These options are now being studied in relation to effectiveness, timing and cost, and to other priorities. The studies are being pressed vigorously forward; but, in view of the potential complexity and cost of the work involved, careful examination of all the issues will be needed before decisions are taken.
Perhaps uncharitably, I read that to mean that nothing would happen for 10 years. I was, therefore, heartened to a degree by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy when replying to the defence debate on 24th February last. He said:
We have to consider what priority can be given to investment in maritime V/STOL capability as an interim measure as opposed to going for a more long-term measure which might have better export prospects".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1650.]
He went on to say that the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force were working closely together on that matter, but that their studies would have to continue for some months and he could not say when they would be completed. I am pleased that he intends to inform the House as soon as they are completed.
We seem in the meantime to have a situation in which nobody knows what will happen. There should be much more certainty about the Harrier programme, particularly in view of export prospects across the Atlantic. I understand that the R.A.F. has about 90 aircraft, most of which are fitted with Pegasus 10 engines. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 60, and is said to want a total of 114. Their aircraft will be fitted with the Pegasus 11 engine uprated to 21,000lb. thrust, and that R.A.F.'s aircraft will also be retrofitted with this

engine. But if the export market is to be collared we must have a more powerful engine still, and the next and obvious step is to go to a Pegasus 15 engine of 24,500lb. thrust.
Everybody knows this. I cannot understand why these simple and known facts of life should suddenly have thrown everybody into a state of great confusion, with talk of building a wholly new airframe. Although I am not an engineer, I know that one of the golden rules of engineering success is to add lightness. If one can succeed in adding 3,500lb. of thrust cheaply one is adding a great deal of lightness. This, coupled with the need to develop new systems, would seem to be all that needs to be done in this case. I therefore do not understand why high-ranking and well-paid R.A.F. and Royal Navy officers are having to study this matter for six months or more.
We simply need now to get on with developing the existing Harrier. There is a grave danger that if we do not get on the Americans will take it over, if they decide that they like the look of the beast. Then we shall be faced with having to buy it back, and we have been caught that way before.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: Many of the points that I would have made have already been covered, some by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), particularly in his references to research and development, and others by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in his references to the MRCA and equipment generally.
It is probably due to the way in which these Estimates are debated that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber—and that applies to both sides of the House. However, this subject is of great interest, not only to members of the Services but to the House and the country. It is to be hoped that some other means will be devised for those who particularly wish to debate these issues, for only by being able really to get to grips with the various items under discussion can we examine them as closely as they should be scrutinised.
When considering the money and resources involved in this Vote one is bound to be reminded of some of the points that


were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) in the debate on the White Paper a few days ago. When voting money of this magnitude and when dealing with the sort of resource capability that we have in mind, we must have regard to other factors of our defence policy and consider whether the sums that we are voting could be used in a civilian rather than in a defence rôle.
We are sometimes criticised by people who are concerned with the Armed Forces in this country and overseas for, in their view, curtailing our defence spending, though this year it has increased again. We are, of course, not necessarily weakening our forces. The programme by which we carry out in this country the servicing of R.A.F. aircraft operating in Europe and Germany is a case in point, and leads one to hope that the Services are being reminded of the need for economy and the best use of the resources which this House is prepared to grant them.
Hon. Members who travel abroad through Europe, the Baltic and the Polar regions often come across officers and commanders of our Forces who never seem to desist from reminding one that our defence spending is getting near the bone. In a democratic society, however, it is necessary for this House to relate the needs of the Forces to the other priorities of the nation.
I recall being in Brussels when one of our defence chiefs expressed the fear that our defence spending was getting too low. I told him that he should try to justify his claim for more resources, manpower and equipment in my constituency. After all, hon. Members are also in touch with those who provide the resources and who probably have good reasons for having priorities different from those of the Service chiefs.
I remember telling one defence chief in Brussels that in one of the 82 villages in my constituency there is a school which was built in 1848. Not unreasonably, some of my constituents would rather see that school modernised, if not replaced, than spend more on defence.
Whatever argument we put up, if an aircraft flies overhead someone in the forefront of the protesters will remind us that £4 million or £5 million has

gone overhead straightaway—money which could have been well spent in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said that the world spent 180 billion dollars on killing and defence and only 14 billion dollars on mutual aid. I thought that was relevant. In the North Atlantic Assembly over the last few years we have been very much concerned with a study of some of the trouble spots of the world which tend to make defence spending rise.
Although this spending is preventive in many ways, I regard it as a negative form of spending. I would like to see more done with the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council to encourage the members of N.A.T.O. to get together to see how they can, by aid and trade, help to eliminate some of the tensions and problems in the Middle East. These particularly arise in Turkey, Greece, Israel, the Arab States, and the Maghreb States. We should see how we can help to get rid of some of the problems there which cause tensions and defence spending to rise in a very negative way. We should bear this point in mind when discussing the allocation of resources in this field.
There is a great need to cut down on the total spending in our defence budget of £2,854 million. Although one recognises that this figure includes a new look at the pay and conditions of the Forces for which my right hon. and hon. Friends in the last Government should be given some credit, continuation of the S.A.L.T. talks and discussions on mutual balanced force reductions are absolutely essential to the future of this country and to Europe in general. If I can switch from the general to the particular, as my right hon. Friend said at the Dispatch Box, there is a great need for a look by the Minister and an indication of the Government's thinking on forward planning.
That is most important, from the point of view not only of defence and the R.A.F. but of our civilian aerospace industry in this country. The hon. Member for Woking referred to the White Paper and the Harrier. I know that my hon. Friends in the House have been pressing for some time for the Government to give a greater indication of their thinking on aerospace generally. That includes not only the civilian but also the military and Air Force aspects.
The hon. Member for Woking referred to page 10, from which I would also quote, mentioning the trials of the Harrier on H.M.S. "Ark Royal" during the past year and indicating that the V/STOL aircraft can be operated effectively from a ship's deck. There are no technical or logistic reasons why V/STOL aircraft should not be considered suitable for deployment at sea. I think that the hon. Member was probably right when he talked about contradiction. The statement further mentions the possibility that V/STOL can make a real contribution in this sphere of operations. Yet it says, at the same time:
No VSTOL aricraft at present exists with the capability for maritime operations. Employment of VSTOL aircraft in an embarked rôle would, therefore, require a considerable degree of development.
The situation varies here from that in the United States, where very often with different aerospace aspects they can develop civilian aircraft much more cheaply because they are using the resources of the defence budget. I think here the development of the Harrier, which has been very successful and which I remember seeing in operation at least three years ago, could be used in the civilian sense in other aspects of V/STOL which we should be getting on with at the present time.
However, the development of V/STOL and the Harrier cannot be looked at in isolation from other aspects where V/STOL could be used in a civilian capacity. This calls for some concerted and co-ordinated thinking not only by the manufacturers on the types of aircraft being developed, such as the Harrier; it also demands from the Government some longer-term and more comprehensive planning in air traffic controls, civilian bases in this country, and liaison with civil engineering and local authorities on both sides of the Channel if we are to make the best use of these projects. There may well be future development in this country for short-range travel as well as in the operational use, to which I have referred, of the Harrier in its maritime capacity.
My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the great escalation in research and development spending in the past year and the next few years. I think

that many of us in industry would like to see some of the resources of the research and development budget from defence deployed in the civilian rôle as well, because there can be a very dramatic spin-off, which could be used for other purposes with a considerable lowering of costs at the same time.
We should look not only at the civilian aspects of our aerospace programme but also at our defence needs in a more constructive way, and with longer-term planning than at present. The hon. Member for Woking rightly said that there was a great deal of uncertainty in the aircraft industry. From time to time those of us who have a particular interest and experience in it are lobbied by hundreds of people from Manchester, Stockport, Bradford, Derby—all over the country—expressing anxiety about their future and that of their industry. Considering the immense resources of manpower and skills represented in these anxieties, with the need to keep design teams together, the Government should give a far better lead than at the present time. We should look at that aspect of our civilian and defence needs as far as aircraft are concerned.
Many of the anxieties in the aircraft industry, not only amongst workers on the shop floor but in the design teams and management itself, would be allayed if we could think in this way. As a member of the Air League and of the Royal Aeronautical Society and other such institutions, one becomes acutely aware of these anxieties in the criticisms which are rightly levelled at the Government at the lack of long-term policy thinking.
I referred in my speech on aerospace policy planning in the Consolidated Fund debate on 15th December last to the lobbies that we get. The debate ended at about One o'clock in the morning, and I remember being lobbied by workers from Manchester who were rather anxious that the Government was investing money in the Jetstream instead of the HS 748. Then they were anxious that the Government should give orders for Nimrods, and I think that the Minister has already indicated that another squadron of Nimrods will be on the order books.
Although one recognises that these orders on defence spending, as well as civilian spending, indicate longer-term


security for those in the industry, the point is that the people who normally talk about cutting down on our defence spending from time to time are thought to be contradictory by demanding orders for Nimrods and similar aircraft. These may be contradictory, but it is really a criticism of the Government that because there is no long-term planning on civilian and defence needs people are apt to back any aircraft which provides them with work, when if we had a long-term look at our industry we could avoid the situation in which people would demand things that they would normally want reduced.
In the speech of the Minister, which I thought contained a number of welcome innovations, reference was made to the increased spending on far better facilities for accommodation in our Forces. We have to recognise that the standard of accommodation and facilities for people in the Forces—both single and married —as well as their leisure activities, must be at least comparable with those which they would get in civilian life. I welcome the improvement here. I recall the representations that I have received from some of my constituents working in Germany who are critical about their houses, which are sometimes many miles away from their places of work. They are anxious to have accommodation nearer to their workplace.

Lord Lambton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to improve housing accommodation. We have that very much in mind.

Mr. Bishop: I note the Minister's comments. I also noted with amusement, if not interest, the reference to the use of the parade ground for a car park, which reflects some credit on my hon. and right hon. Friends for the improvements in pay and conditions which have enabled more people in the Forces to have that kind of transport and to make better use of the parade ground, which was an unfortunate image of the unnecessary discipline with which the R.A.F. was once associated.
This shows a new change of thinking. I notice that there are about 20,000 officers compared with about 93,000 other ranks—which looks like one officer for every three or four other ranks. That demonstrates the great need for integration in this sophisticated and technical Service.
I come now to some constituency points. I refer first to the remarks the Minister made about Cranwell, and the new training facilities. The Minister made a statement this afternoon about the redeployment there, not only about the type of aircraft, but also the location of training bases. Perhaps in summing up he will say something about the future of R.A.F. Syerston, on the edge of my constituency. This has concerned me for some time, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was Secretary of State for Defence, when he declared that this base was not likely to be used in future.
While the future needs are being assessed the base is being maintained on a care-and-maintenance basis. I hope that the Minister will deal with this and, if it is to be used in future, say what his plans are. If it is to be used only partially, will he say whether any resources —housing land or other facilities—might be made available to local authorities in the area who urgently need such facilities? A number of authorities in the Newark area, including Southwell R.D.C. and the Notts County Council, as well as Bingham—which is just outside my constituency—are anxious to use these facilities. If the Minister can say which facilities will be wanted it will be most welcome.
I am pleased to note the investigation which goes on with equipment. I was pleased to note that the White Paper, in paragraph 12, states that
Britain has taken a leading part in the activities of the Eurogroup from its inception, including its specialised sub-groups which are exploring the possibilities of closer European co-operation in logistics, communications, training medical facilities and arms procurement.
That is a good thing, which must continue if we are to make the best use of our resources and assure the public that their money for defence is being spent in the best way.
As one who has seen the Services—particularly the R.A.F.—in operation in various parts of the world, I add my praise for those officers and men who make their contribution, often at great danger and risk to themselves, and, to the discomfort of their families. It is right that some words of appreciation and pride should come from this Chamber. I hope that the rôle of the R.A.F. and all our


Services in future can be taken as part of a wider effort, especially by our N.A.T.O. partners, to see whether our resources can be used in a more constructive and positive way by ridding the world—and the Middle East, in particular—of some of the problems which cause tensions to rise, and defence spending with them. This teamwork will help our people to realise that we are doing all we can to ensure that the demands of defence are kept to a minimum and facilities deployed in the best way.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the lines of his argument but instead join with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in congratulating the Minister on his order for the Jetstream aircraft for the R.A.F. in place of the Varsity. Many of us who have watched the fortunes of the aircraft were particularly pleased to see it come through so many trials and tribulations to this order and I hope that this may also mean a considerable civilian order book.
I should like to welcome too the Hawker Siddeley 1182 as a training aircraft because it is clearly a good thing for the R.A.F. to have British aircraft. To think that two new British aircraft will soon come into service cheers me up very much.
During this debate perhaps we have been over-congratulating ourselves on the front line and super modern quality of the aircraft we now have in the R.A.F., so if I strike a slightly discordant note I hope that my hon. Friend will follow my reasoning. Looking at the list of aircraft in the defence estimates one is struck by the fact that a number of the aircraft in various commands have been around for a long time. To say just when they first went on the drawing-board would probably be difficult. If we think of the Canberra or the Victor we are going back to the 1950s although I know some of the Canberras in Service have been produced between 1966–68. There are, however, some of these aircraft in service with Strike Command which go back to the 1950s.
I suggest that for some of our front line aircraft to be as much as perhaps

20-year-old does not speak of their modernity. We should surely be ready with replacements by now. The Victor aircraft is in the same position. Although the White Paper makes something of the fact that the Victor Mark II is being developed for the tanker rôle and that the Shackleton will be our airborne early warning aircraft I would remind hon. Gentlemen that the Victor is 18 years old and the Shackleton 20 years. This is not to say that these aircraft do not have a long Service life ahead of them. I cannot help feeling that to consider them as front-line aircraft when we know of the enormous advances made in aircraft design in the last 20 years is to expect rather a lot. I commend the idea that we should be thinking of rather more modern aircraft to take the rôles of the Canberra and Victor. The Jaguar will come along quite soon I hope, to take over the reconnaissance rôle of the Canberra, and could I suggest that further Nimrods might be brought in to take over the Victor's rôle, both its reconnaissance and its tanker task.
After all, we have already had reference in the course of the debate to the excellence of the Nimrod aircraft and, again, I think we are all aware that it has prospects of overseas orders, although one has to admit that those prospects take a long time coming. However, this only emphasises the point that the more Nimrods we bring into service with the Royal Air Force the longer the production line remains open, and the longer the production line remains open, the more chance there is of picking up the orders that must surely come its way.
Lastly on this particular part of my speech, I want to raise the question of airfield defence and again one refers to an old weapon system, the Bloodhound. Indeed, one is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that the Bloodhound is getting long in the tooth and one is inclined to ask whether Bloodhound is really capable of the task for which it is being used or should we be looking for a new system to do its job. I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend could find something to say in his winding-up speech about these points.
From weaponry I should like to turn once again to the vexed question of Linesman/Mediator. First, I should like


to say how grateful I am for the statement already made by my hon. Friend in the course of this debate. However, if I still have one or two questions in my mind that is not to underestimate what we have been told but merely to seek clarification, because I think we recognise that the Linesman part of the Mediator system, that is, the air defence part, is pretty crucial to the air defences of this country. I also think the allegations published recently in the Daily Express under the name of Mr. Chapman Pincher, deserve very careful answers. I, personally, feel that Mr. Chapman Pincher got most of what he wrote from an excellent paper recently read by Air Vice Marshal Crew, Deputy Controller of the National Air Traffic Control Services, reproduced in The Aeronautical Journal in January. Be that as it may, the questions that Mr. Pincher posed, and indeed the Genesis of Linesman itself, raise a number of questions in my mind which I shall seek to outline.
I understand that Linesman dates from approximately 1961 from a recommendation made by a working party under the chairmanship of the Inspector General of the Royal Air Force. The recommendation from that working party was that the radar coverage and the data-processing requirements for air defence and air traffic control were sufficiently similar to warrant the integration of the two plans, and from that concept came the joint Linesman air defence and Mediator air traffic control system. But according to the Air Vice Marshal by 1965—during the period of the last administration, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) is listening to every word I say—it became obvious —and I am quoting the Air Vice Marshal —that it would not all be just as simple as that recommendation. He goes on:
Although the requirements of civil and military air traffic control and of air defence looked similar, in that they concerned the use of air space, used radar data and were suitable for the appliction of on line data processing, they were in fact by no means the same.
He details the difficulties which had to be faced and then he says:
By 1969 it was obvious that the demands of the radar data processing system had been seriously underestimated.

I want for a moment to break off, Mr. Speaker, because during the defence debate last week I tried to catch your eye, unsuccessfully, but I did interject during the remarks of the right hon. Member for Aberavon that he had a responsibility for the system, and he threw back at me, "When did you come into the House?" I came in 1969 and I can say, as I did during the Defence debate that I do not recall him telling the House about the shortcomings in Linesman. However to return to the remarks of Air Vice Marshal Crew. He goes on to say:
There would certainly be no spare capacity
…in the system
… over and above air defence needs, so that the system as planned could not also meet the needs of Mediator.
He finally makes the point that Linesman/Mediator had in fact proved to have such shortcomings that it could meet either the Civil Controlled Air-space task or the military off-route requirements for the Middle Airspace but not both.
From the Minister's statement made this afternoon, it is clear that the system is in fact being re-vamped and improved, but my questions are these:
Since 1969 why has the House not been told of any of the shortcomings in the Linesman system? Certainly such questions as have been tabled—and very many of those were tabled by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield)—produced what one can only describe as bromide answers with no hint of the problem that the system is now facing. Also I wonder why the last Administration, or even the present one, did not see fit, in any Defence White Paper, to point out the problems that were going to have to be faced. But, be that as it may, the questions that now seem pertinent—and I will list them if I may—are the following:
How serious are the shortcomings in the Linseman system and does it still constitute an effective air defence system? Has its cost escalated beyond the £78 million estimated for it in 1962 and, if that cost has escalated, by how much? When was the system first found to be wanting, and why was no statement made to the House? Can the Linesman system now be made really effective and, if not, what alternative air defence radar system are we going to use in the future?
Again, I hope my hon. Friend will forgive my criticism, but Air Vice Marshal Crew's is somewhat less complacent than my hon. Friend's statement this afternoon. While the Air Vice Marshal refers to R.A.F. controllers beginning work at West Drayton in a new operations room, he tells us that the system has had to be modified and he speaks of "some very serious setbacks". He refers to interim measures and of the next phase of development taking us into the 80s, eight years hence. What happens in those eight years when this country will still need an air defence system? If he can find time in his closing speech to comment on some of the questions and, perhaps, provide answers I shall be very grateful.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer briefly to the question of the R.A.F.'s facilities at its airfields and stations, and in particular to a visit which I paid to the Royal Ar Force station at St. Athan with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The first point I want to make relates to married quarters. The feeling at St. Athan was that there was still a considerable scarcity of married quarters and that today when the Serviceman's wife absolutely is part of his total environment as never before. She travels with him very much as the field-marshal's baton used to travel in a soldier's knapsack; married quarters are part and parcel of the attraction of the Services and also of the overall wellbeing of the Serviceman.
My second point relates to the problem of married Servicemen and the need for the Ministry of Defence to give rather better notice than has been the case when a serviceman is going to be posted away from his present station. This means, after all, his taking up the roots of his home and putting them down somewhere else; and since this is often a problem, even for those in civilian life, clearly the longer the warning the happier the serviceman.
Another, which I suspect may have relevance to other airfields and Royal Air Force stations is the need for improved airfield security. I could find nothing in the White Paper which refers to the R.A.F. police or to the military police, but obviously in this debate I shall concentrate my remarks on the R.A.F. police.
At St. Athan one heard that the R.A.F. police was 60 per cent. under strength, that career prospects in that branch of the Service were extremely unattractive and that many R.A.F. policemen find themselves with too many duties to perform. That in turn produces the low morale which comes from the weary and bored Serviceman. At a time when we are all aware of the need for increased security in the United Kingdom—and I am thinking of the I.R.A. bombing at Aldershot—we are clearly running considerable risks if we do not have sufficient policemen in and around R.A.F. stations to protect them and their airfields.
I should also be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend would comment on those points.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: First, I apologise to the Minister for having been absent at the beginning of his speech. We sometimes complain about the miserable attendance at these debates, although it is by no means unique in defence debates. At present, that is partly explained by the fact that about 200 hon. Members, including myself, are engaged on the Committee Floor. The public who see these debates should not go away with the impression that we are the only group of persons who are working in the building at this time.
I am particularly glad to be speaking after the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) because he referred to the Royal Air Force station at St. Athan. That station is in my constituency and I have visited it. The hon. Member will agree that it was a very worthwhile visit. It was the sort of Service visit which illustrates graphically the change which is coming about in the Armed Forces. I would certainly back the Minister in his claims of improved facilities for persons living-in on the camp. We saw some very impressive blocks of accommodation. I can help the Minister—not that he needs my help —in answering the hon. Member about married quarters. A very ambitious building programme for married quarters is about to be undertaken at Royal Air Force St. Athan, and I understand that there is no change in the situation and that the programme will go ahead. When it comes about, it will mean a radical improvement there.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East about the comparative dearth of Royal Air Force police. This was mentioned during our visit. But in a sense, my puzzlement is greater than his about this matter, because consequent upon our visit I put down a Question to the Minister about the recruiting short-fall in Royal Air Force police. I was told that there was no short-fall. That surprised me greatly. It means one of two things, I suspect: either that the establishment of R.A.F. police for stations like St. Athan is inadequate, in which case I should be glad of the Minister's attention in redrawing that, or that there is a sufficiency of R.A.F. police somewhere but that they are not getting through to St. Athan. The problem which I can illustrate to the Minister is not only that of defence of the airfield but also the question of the inevitable vandalism and petty acts which occur, particularly on a station which has a training function, such as St. Athan, and consequently has a lot of young men on it. Those to whom we spoke were very concerned about the problem and the lack of adequate cover which they felt they had over this matter.
It does not stop at being merely an internal matter because the discipline, the supervision they have on the station, in turn affects their behaviour off the camp and that, in turn, affects the good relationship which exists between the civilian population in the area and the R.A.F. authorities.
My second point about St. Athan is that a change has come about in its function and its projected function. Until December it was projected that the servicing of Buccaneer aircraft would be transferred to St. Athan, or at least a very major part of that servicing. Now there has been a decision that the largest share of that servicing will be continued at Sydenham, Belfast. I say right away that I accept the rightness of that decision in view of the job losses which would otherwise occur in a province hard hit not only by civil disorder but by the constant spectre of unemployment. Therefore, I make no criticism of that decision. But the Under-Secretary will know that there was some talk consequent upon his announcement of reducing personnel at the station, and there are other minor uncertainties. I was glad that in correspondence he was good enough to fill me

in with a number of details and reassure me upon a number of points. But I hope that he will be able to make a firm announcement as soon as possible about whether any reduction in personnel or tasks at R.A.F. St. Athan is contemplated so that all the uncertainties will be cleared up.
The Buccaneer aircraft will be serviced at Sydenham by civilians, whereas at St. Athan it was projected that this would be done by Service personnel. I make a constituency point here, as well as a point concerning the Service. What has happened illustrates that giving some tasks to civilians does not affect the Service too greatly. If it is decided at some later date to transfer Buccaneer servicing to St. Athan, I hope that the Minister will draw on the lessons of the Sydenham experiment by bearing in mind that my area, too, is one of high unemployment and that a shared civilian and Service rôle would provide much needed jobs in the area. The decision about Sydenham illustrates that the Forces and the Ministers in charge of the Forces have to be increasingly aware of the social repercussions of their decisions. The Sydenham decision was taken because of the unemployment problem.
That leads me to the subject of recruiting. I noted what the Minister said about recruiting. I address my remarks in particular to re-engagement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) said that there tends to be at times in the Services an imbalance of structure in the N.C.O. grades. I have had a number of cases from my constituency of people serving in the Forces who have now been refused an extension of service, that is, from their original engagement on to 22 years service because of the numbers in their trade and the year in which they happened to enter. The Minister will know that I have taken up correspondence with him on a number of these cases.
May I illustrate a serious problem which now exists in a case in which I have not and cannot write to the Minister, because I have been approached by the wife of a serving N.C.O. whose husband knows nothing about her approach to me. She wrote to me in an anxiety borne of a desperate worry about a refusal to allow a re-engagement. The man in question was a sergeant, a Halton-trained


apprentice, who applied for an extension of service from 15 years to 22 years. He has been refused. In itself, that is a blow to the pride of a conscientious N.C.O. He is bewildered at feeling unwanted. The decision has had severe effects upon his gratuity and the pension. The outside world he faces at the age of 40 is one in which unemployment is high and his efforts to obtain a post to succeed his Service career so far have failed. This man has proved his loyalty to the Service and his ability by attaining his present rank and by his length of service. He is an angry and apprehensive man and his domestic life is suffering, I am informed, because of the strain. I ask the Under-Secretary to recognise some obligation to these long-serving N.C.O.s who, because of an accident of year of entry and choice of trade, are faced with being pushed out into civilian life and the spectre of unemployment.
The question has been raised this afternoon of anxiety over future recruiting, although it is good at the moment. I always understood that the most effective recruiting advertisement was the satisfied Serviceman. The Minister should ponder the effect of a band of these fairly senior N.C.O.s who have dedicated themselves to the Service, being put out into civilian life and to ponder the effect they would have on recruiting. They should be the best recruiters, telling their friends and their friends' children what the Services are like. But if a man leaves the Services angry and embittered the effect he could cause on recruiting would be wholly deleterious.
I should like to suggest a solution, but I admit I have no knowledge as to its practicability because I do not know how many men are in this position. Could the Minister look at the prospect of re-engagement, if necessary with a remustering from their existing trades? If the numbers are such that they would not cause a drain on the Service budget, it would be a good gesture by the R.A.F. at a time of economic trouble and it would cast it in a favourable light.
I very much agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in what I took to be an answer to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) about the servicing of aircraft. Here again I am in a fortunate

position because I can speak about the B.O.A.C. factory at Treforest which is in my constituency. It is a very efficient factory which has a high standard of speedy service and I hope the Minister will look at the suggestion by my hon. Friend in his intervention.
Finally, I come to the R.A.F.'s rôle abroad. The Defence White Paper on page 17 refers to the Air Force personnel serving in Oman. As we understand it, they are there to fulfil treaties which are, apparently, simple treaties. Their rôle is that of training and defence. But reports are appearing in the newspapers which are giving rise to anxiety about what is happening in Oman. We have read about the deaths of two air Service personnel and of four others being wounded. I understand that there are about 100 to 150 Service personnel in the area—I do not claim inside knowledge; I merely quote the newspaper reports. Their rôle is projected as concerned with training and defence, but The Times Beirut correspondent reported two killed in an offensive.
What exactly is the rôle of the R.A.F. Regiment and the other R.A.F. units in Oman at the moment? Have they been involved in any of the casualties which have apparently occurred there? The Minister or someone in the Defence Department ought now to comment upon what the Sunday Times and the Observer have called "Britain's Secret War in the Gulf". It is time, if British Service personnel are being drawn into engagement, that the House of Commons knew what was going on and was fully and freely informed.
It is too fanciful to equate this with Vietnam, but I ask the Under-Secretary at least to read the lesson of Vietnam, because that too started with the Americans in an advisory and training rôle and they gradually became more and more deeply involved. Until the Under-Secretary can assure us on this, our fears for the R.A.F. and the other Service personnel are that there will be a deeper commitment to that particular area.
That said, I add my tribute to the Service men who are not only of high spirit and service but who have enormous expertise in what is now a highly technical and professional branch of the Services. They deserve our admiration.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: If I do not follow the measured remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) I hope he will forgive me. I express a word of commiseration to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the accidents of the parliamentary timetable which led to the presentation of his first Estimates last year on the first day back after the Easter Recess and this year after an all-night talk-in in which the thorns crackled loudly under a well-stirred pot. It is all the more ironic because voting defence funds is historically the most important function of the House and yet we cannot muster more than a handful of hon. Members to our debate. To mis-quote Sir Walter Raleigh most cruelly, "Those that were most lavish of words last night are most niggardly in action today".
Last year my hon. Friend, in a wide-ranging speech which is well worth rereading, examined the purpose of the Royal Air Force. He urged the House not to close its eyes to events in Europe where the Soviet Union had increased its financial expenditure by about 30 per cent. in the past five years. Even that was a conservative estimate, because it omitted the Space and science votes from which technical developments in missiles, radar and electronics have been made which are of immense significance to the Soviet Air Force. He said:
One has only to look at the Soviet forces which exist, not only on the Western front, but also on the flanks and in reserve, to see that vast numbers of men and machines, greatly out-numbering those in N.A.T.O., could be brought into the front line in a comparatively short time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 844.]
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out on 23rd February this year, the Soviet Union:
… has achieved now a rough numerical parity in terms of strategic nuclear delivery systems. Of even greater concern to us, though, is the fact that they have been able to build up very powerful conventional forces." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1313.]
In my own words in that same debate I summed up the challenge facing the Royal Air Force and N.A.T.O. by saying that the Soviet Air Force probably had
the most flexible instrument of mobile blitzkrieg in the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1560.]

The invasion of Czechoslovakia, which was greatly facilitated by the stealthy arrival of the great Antonov transports unloading their comradely complement of Red Army personnel and K.G.B. men, is not the only example. The Soviet Air Transport Force has shown its airlift capability in military build-ups in Egypt, Yemen and India and, briefly, to the Sudan.
In Egypt, the most sophisticated air defence system outside the two main power blocs has been established. From six bases, 15 squadrons of Mig 21s operate with Russian crews, and intrusions of Mig 23s into Israeli air space have occurred from these bases. Tu 16 Badger long-range maritime reconnaissance-bomber aircraft have constantly shadowed and menaced the most vital elements of Western power in the Mediterranean, the two attack carrier groups of the United States Six Fleet, and in recent days Soviet air patrols have extended west as far as Corsica.
In our own air space, Royal Air Force Strike Command had to perform about 300 live interceptions of Soviet intruders last year, the highest number to date.
With a manpower strength just under 500,000 and an inventory of 10,200 aircraft the Soviet Airforce, not to mention that of its client Warsaw Pact partners in Eastern Europe, is a force able to undertake every gradation of offensive operations, from the nuclear end of the spectrum to parading the outward and visible signs of an expanding political presence. Physical and geographical obstacles to a Warsaw Pact advance diminish before an airlift capability of three to four airborne divisions. With a force of about 5,000 transports and helicopters, the Soviets' potential air superiority over the battlefield could be of dominating significance. It is all the more crucial that we deny to them that dominance since they have a superiority over the West of three to one in armour and a similar amount in manpower on the central fronts. Here, where our own component, Royal Air Force Germany, is assigned to the 2nd Allied Tactical Airforce, the Warsaw Pact has a superiority of seven to one in interceptors, which would be the deciding element in any air war in which we as a defensive alliance cannot chose either the time or the place.
The situation would indeed be grim were not many current developments in train which enhance the capabilities of the Royal Air Force. The Service has gained immeasurably from the period of stability that my noble Friend the Secretary of State so rightly took pride in when he presented his White Paper to the other place on 22nd February. Uncertainty, precipitate changes of policy, notably in the earlier years of the last Administration, had the result of sapping morale, inhibiting effective planning and causing hiatuses in training and procurement. Now the Royal Air Force can look forward to its essentially European rôle with confidence. The 1,000 million dollar European Defence Improvements Programme of 1970 will enhance its operational efficiency. It is true that there are still insufficient N.A.T.O. airfields compared with the Warsaw Pact. Hardening can never be a satisfactory substitute for dispersal or—preferably, operationally speaking—first strike. None the less, the Royal Air Force is acquiring a formidable trio in Harrier, Jaguar and the M.R.C.A.
In the defence debate I said that we must go wholeheartedly for V/STOL. I stand by that judgment, although to give it its fullest weight I should say that the potential of the concept will be fully realised only when it is allied to resupply in the field by heavy-lift helicopters. Nevertheless, by dispersal retaliatory potential can be maximised through V/STOL, and hence deterrence also. If the vulnerability can be minimised through V/STOL, the flexibility and indivisibility of airpower can also be exploited.
To carry that exploitation of airpower further, we should take into account potential inter-operability of V/STOL types from suitable platforms at sea. This highlights a stark reality, the tragedy of the Royal Air Force's pyrrhic victory over naval airpower. It having politically torpedoed in the mid-1960s the aircraft carrier as the main instrument of Britain's global strategy, in favour of land-based tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, the total aerial support of the Fleet had to be pledged by the Royal Air Force, while the eyes and teeth of the Fleet, the fixed-wing element of Fleet Air Arm, was to be killed by political fiat.
When, in search of further economies, the last Government took away the Royal Air Force's long-range, East of Suez, oceanic strike rôle, not only did they necessarily cause the cancellation of TSR2 and the F111, but when they accepted a more modest Air Staff requirement for tactical strike and reconnaissance in the European rôle, upon which the A.F.V.G. and later the M.R.C.A. evolved, the Air Staff did not have the magnanimity to yield over fixed-wing naval aviation. The Royal Navy was to get no quid pro quo for the loss of the strike carriers, unless we take into account the Polaris strategic delivery systems. This was notwithstanding the global expansion of the increasingly missile-equipped Soviet Navy and Soviet Naval Air Arm and experience in a number of exercises of our own air forces operating in support of the Fleet at extremities of range. If all the sterility of the arguments from 1918 to 1937 has been avoided, it is because of the Government's decision to retain "Ark Royal" in commission until 1978, to be succeeded by through-deck cruisers with at least V/STOL potential.
The options are therefore left open, and while I welcome the rationalisation of shore support logistics and training of naval air squadrons, which is increasingly in train, I hope that the historic lessons of the period from 1st April, 1918 to the Inskip Award of 1936 have not all been forgotten, and that a Fleet Air Arm including fixed-wing squadrons, predominantly Navy-manned, can be retained for the years ahead. This is as much in the interests of the Royal Air Force as of the Royal Navy. The R.A.F. in particular is bound to have areas of higher priority than organic air support of the Fleet.
There are other factors that augur well for the strength of the Royal Air Force. First, I put great emphasis on the value placed upon training. As the Israeli and Pakistan Air Forces have shown against their predominantly Russian-equipped and trained Egyptian and Indian adversaries respectively, there is still no substitute for superlative training allied to practical leadership and clear decision-making in air operations. These can still outweigh superior numbers and even more sophisticated equipment. In the recent Indo-Pakistan war in particular,


the Pakistanis, although their Chinese-supplied Mig 19s were outclassed in performance by the Soviet-supplied Mig 21s of the Indian Air Force, gave a very good account of themselves. This was in spite of the use by the Indians of Soviet-supplied airborne control aircraft to direct Indian offensive air operations against targets in Pakistan, and in spite of the deployment by the Indians of surface-to-air missile defences.
I note that another review of officer training has taken place. I particularly welcome the amalgamation of the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, and the Royal Air Force College of Air Warfare. The more closely graduate trainees are brought into contact with experienced serving officers and a wide variety of aircraft, the better. I have always welcomed the drive towards a higher level of educational attainment among officer entrants. In my small way, I perhaps pioneered it. However, I have felt that we could combine university opportunity with the best professional training in the Service academies while giving a grounding in an inter-Service cadet establishment. That has been my hope. It is not yet realised, but I hope that it will be in the years ahead.
I hope also that our graduate trainees receive sufficient professional training in leadership, in discipline and the indoctrination of a loyalty to the service at any early age.
On the equipment side of the flying-training pattern I would like to know more. From the obviously authoritative article in Flight of 13th January, 1972, I gather that the Bulldogs are to succeed the Chipmunks in the sixteen university air squadrons. I would ask my hon. Friend whether they are to re-equip the 13 air experienced flights. Also, when the Jet Provosts are phased out, and the 1182s enter service will the SM260 be chosen, as I have consistently advocated, to be a basic trainer to lead into the 1182? These aircraft and the 1182 would be ideal common equipment for the reserve.
As my noble Friend has acknowledged, it is valuable if the weapon capability for the 1182 can be used as augmentation of the fighting capacity of the service in time of emergency or war. Some seem to think that when I have advocated

the expansion of the reserves that I do so for reasons of nostalgia. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) last year were irrationally obsessed with what they imagined as the Trechardian overtones of mly proposals. They were sympathetic to the call of exclusive professionalism uttered by my noble Friend. "The days of the Battle of Britain when a pilot could go into combat after a few hours' training were gone", it was exclaimed. He would have been gone for ever in the Battle of Britain with just a few hours' training! None the less, I hope that the still small voice of logic was not drowned by the thunder of the imaginary Rolls-Royce Merlins and the call to scramble on the headphones—

Mr. Dalyell: Could we leave the offensive remarks out of it and concentrate on the issue?

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not think I was being offensive.

Mr. Dalyell: I think it was rather offensive. We must concentrate on the issue which is that in the days when the R.A.F. was involved in the Battle of Britain it cost very little money and aeroplanes were comparatively simple. Now we are talking about highly sophisticated aircraft. I do not think the hon. Member would deny the figure of a quarter of a million to train a fast jet pilot.

Mr. Wilkinson: I do not deny any of those figures, but if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to pursue my argument he will be able to draw it together.
My noble Friend said last year:
For a reserve pilot to be useful today he must be efficient and perfectly trained.
What I say is that it is not necessary to be perfectly trained to be useful. There is a function for people with a lower level of skill. That is all I am saying. He chose the example of the Harrier and two years before the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) chose the examples of the Lightning, the Phantom and the Buccaneer in answering my suggestion.
All I was suggesting was a modest re-equipment of the existing air experienced flights with modest and cheap aircraft or helicopters, whatever the Air Staff deem appropriate to fulfil secondary duties


like mini-coin, air experience, communications, primary training, light attack, search and rescue and aid to the civil power.
It would be an expansion of what my noble Friend called the "civilianisation" of the Royal Air Force, an attempt to move away from outmoded military concepts and to break away from a static military outlook and image, and to offer nationwide an opportunity to serve within the Royal Air Force on a part-time basis. The trouble is that the service becomes ever more professional, ever more introverted and is located in fewer and fewer places. It is a recognition, to quote my hon. and noble Friend again, that looking into the 1980s and beyond we should aim to increase the numbers by accepting less sophistication in some areas rather than relying totally on a wholly sophisticated Air Force".
Furthermore, although quite rightly in 1967 we accepted a policy of flexible response, and this justifies every penny we spend on the Royal Air Force, it does seem odd to say the least that we are so resolutely, as far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, denying ourselves without reserves the instruments and capabilities of flexible response which could be demanded in a protracted and costly although limited conflict. The Royal Air Force is still totally wedded to the concept of the three or four day war. It is wedded to the philosophy of Foster Dulles and the doctrines of massive nuclear retaliation of the bomber barons of the late 1950s and early 1960s, much more than to the realities of graduated deterrence in an era of nuclear parity and overwhelming Soviet conventional military power. How else can proposals which are financially so undemanding in scope, which would improve Royal Air Force recruiting and make a modest contribution to its ability to expand, be so lightly dismissed?
In a Vote which I otherwise commend to the House, making provision as it does for a Service which is invaluable to the nation and is in good shape and good heart, I must in conclusion draw attention to the mere £3 million allocated for the Royal Air Force Reserves. This is as opposed to the £150 million for Service pensions or £290 million for what the hon. and learned Member for Northamp-

ton (Mr. Paget) calls the tethered goat of B.A.O.R., or £171 million for local administration or even £41 million for the territorial army. If an Air National Guardsman in the United States can operate a sophisticated aircraft of supersonic performance on operations, there is no reason why more limited functions should not be fulfilled by keen part-timers in this country.
To sum it all up, if nothing else, the Eurocentricity of our strategic posture, and the ever-growing pressure of manpower costs upon budgets that diminish in real terms, must induce eventually an agonising reappraisal if equipment programmes and procurement costs are not going to suffer. It is for that reason above all that I have made these suggestions about the Reserve. I commend the Defence Votes to the House.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: When one listens to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. John Wilkinson) one always realises that he brings a great deal of enthusiasm, expertise and knowledge to the debates. One recognises that what we have gained in these debates in the House is obviously the loss of the Air Force which previously was able to enjoy his services.
I feel a little humble about intervening in this debate, representing as I do a constituency which contains one of the principal naval bases in the country. Therefore, I want to limit my observations to two or three small, practical points.
May I start by adding my congratulation and thanks to all those who served the nation so effectively and conscientiously within the Air Force, and add a special word of appreciation for the humanitarian services which the Air Force provides outside its main responsibilities, and which it carries out so cheerfully. Sometimes these are more dramatic, but in the case of my own constituency I have regularly seen the Air Force at work helping to rescue yachtsmen and others who find themselves in difficulties in the Solent. This is as vital and practical a service to the community which should not go unnoticed. I sometimes wonder, quite frankly, what the economics of the operation really are, and how far—whatever contributions may be made—this is a


taxpayers' subsidy to support those who are able to afford the sport.
The two practical points on which I really want to concentrate briefly this evening are these. First of all, in Question Time I have been able to ask the Minister opposite about the possibility of his taking the initiative in co-ordinating discussions in the South Hampshire and West Sussex area about the development of civil and military airport facilities. I and the people I represent have noted with appreciation his fairly positive response to the questions that have been put. There is now a degree of urgency about the situation, because the local authority in Portsmouth has decided to phrase out completely the local civic airport and, with the rapid development of population and, we hope, economic activity within this geographical area, there is obviously a need to reach long-term rational solutions which ensure that this community has the best possible services. In terms of the problems of air traffic control and of noise and pollution, it would be sensible to consider joint usage by the Royal Air Force and civil airlines where this can be successfully negotiated.
This conclusion in the context of the area which I know best, leads me to suggest that perhaps, with the constant development of domestic civilian air services, there is a case for far more initiative by the Minister's department in seeing how and to what extent greater co-ordination can be achieved throughout the country, thereby achieving economy in the interests of tax payers, rate payers and all.
My second point concerns welfare and humanitarian aspects of life within the Service. I think we all agree that happy family life is of profound significance for the morale of serving personnel. Therefore, one cannot devote too much attention to the welfare and family services which are at the disposal of personnel in the Royal Air Force and other Services.
I am concerned about a problem with which I have been confronted in recent weeks and on which I should like to hear the Minister's thinking. Basically, I think we would all agree that Service life puts special strains upon families, although perhaps not so much in the Royal Air Force as in the Royal Navy.

If statistical analysis were undertaken, it would probably be found that there is a proportionately higher rate of family break-up within the Services than within the rest of society. If a family does unfortunately break up, a wife and children can suddenly find themselves projected into an acute personal crisis in terms of their housing needs. The Service Ministers should look seriously at this problem.
I have in mind a particular family which has sadly broken up. The wife and children are to be evicted from their Service quarters at Ruislip. They have been told that they qualify for consideration for local authority housing only in the London Borough of Hillingdon, because that is where they are at present residing, and that there is a five-year waiting list before they have any hope of accommodation. However, the mother and children want to return to their real home, which is my city of Portsmouth and, despite all the activities of the Service welfare organisations, the firm reply has come from the local authority in Portsmouth that there is no question of putting them even on to the waiting list because they do not fulfil the residential qualifications. If we recognise that Service families contribute to the well being, effectiveness and morale of the Service, we must also recognise that we have a special responsibility to the families as well as to the serving military personnel at times of family crisis.
I dare say that in the midst of all the wider policy considerations this must seem a very small point, but I hope it will not be overlooked. I ask the Minister whether an imaginative and progressive Service like the R.A.F. could not take some initiative in getting together with other Government Departments to ensure that where a family crisis of this kind arises, as it does, not infrequently, as a result of the special Service pressures, action can be taken on an inter-departmental basis to ensure that we do not have a situation in which, as the mother said to me recently—
The boys, aged five and six, have already lost their father; they should not have to lose their mother as well.
This will inevitably happen if, as seems to be the only practical solution at the moment, the mother is compelled to go into hostel accommodation and the children to a children's home.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: Like the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), I had not intended to intervene in the debate, particularly as I had a good innings in the defence debate. On looking at the rather empty benches which are no doubt a reflection of our activities last night and early this morning, however, I felt that a few moments might be justified.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West mentioned air-sea rescue. Taking up that theme, I say to the Under-Secretary of State that the Ministry of Defence, with other Ministries—such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—should give consideration to a form of coastguard service to look after air-sea rescue, fishery protection—which will be particularly important when the new limits are introduced—and pollution of the sea. If the Services contributed towards such a service within a civilian coastguard organisation, we might be able to provide one organisation to perform those three functions. That would be of great use to the community and to the Royal Air Force, because helicopters would play an important part in such an organisation.
I intervene to ask a few questions about the newer maritime rôle of the Royal Air Force. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend and the Government on the order for more Nimrods. These aircraft are probably among the most important in the R.A.F., and lead the world in maritime reconnaissance capabilities, which is absolutely vital, not only for this country but for N.A.T.O., at a time when the Soviet Navy—both surface and submarine—is expanding so rapidly. I hope that the new order will allow the production line to continue for sufficient time for Commonwealth countries such as Canada and Australia, and also South Africa, to consider whether they, too, will purchase these aircraft. The West would gain very much if these three countries had a common aircraft for the purpose of maritime surveillance. I think that everyone will agree that the Nimrod is far in advance of the American Lockheed Orion and the Breguet Atlantique, which are possible rivals but relatively obsolescent compared with Nimrod.
I have always believed, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House,

that it was the intention of the last Labour Government and the present Government as far as possible to have cross-operation between Royal Naval aircraft and R.A.F. aircraft in the maritime rôle. Admittedly, there is to be only one, or possibly two, carriers left in the Royal Navy, but the Americans have a number of aircraft carriers, and so have the French, and there will be a requirement for some time to come, certainly until the 1980s, for R.A.F. aircraft to land on the decks of aircraft carriers. I understand that that was the intention of previous Governments.
It came as a shock to me to learn only the other day that, in considering the Phantoms and the Buccaneers this may not be possible. Taking first the Phantoms, those that were ordered for the R.A.F. cannot operate from carriers because they have not the necessary naval equipment. I understand that those that are being taken over from the Navy are having their navalised equipment, but not the arrester hook, removed, so that they also will be unable to operate from carriers.
That seems a very serious matter, and if it is only a question of leaving a certain amount of navalised equipment on the plane surely this should be done, as it would give flexibility of operation, as regards not only our own carriers but also those of our allies in N.A.T.O. I understand that the American F4J can operate from carriers or shore, and that those designed for the R.A.F. cannot. I should like to ask a specific question, therefore. Has any Royal Air Force aircraft in the past few years ever operated from the deck of an aircraft carrier? I am not including the Harrier in that class, because we know that it has, but has any purely R.A.F. fixed wing aircraft—not a naval version—actually operated from the deck of an aircraft carrier and, if so, how often?
The story is continued with the Buccaneer, which is built in my constituency. It was designed as a maritime strike aircraft and has been extremely satisfactory in that rôle. As the House knows, a number of Buccaneers nave been handed over by the Royal Navy to the Royal Air Force, and a new order has been placed for Royal Air Force Buccaneers to serve in Germany. There is


one Royal Navy squadron of Buccaneers left which can operate from carriers, because they are designed to operate from the "Ark Royal" during the remainder of her lifetime, but have the Buccaneers that have been handed over to the R.A.F. now been "denavalised", if I may use that horrible expression? Are they, like the Phantoms, not going to be capable of operating from the decks of carriers? I believe that that is so, because I read an article in Flight Review International of August, 1970, which showed that the majority of the special equipment, with the exception of the arrester hook, was being removed from the Buccaneers handed over to the R.A.F. If that is so, it seems to be extremely shortsighted, as it will prevent any cross-operation of these, aircraft.
On the question of naval operations—we are to build Anglo-French Jaguars for operation in the Royal Air Force. I understand that the French Navy is using these aircraft to operate from its two carriers—"Foch" and "Clemenceau". Is it going to be possible to make our new Jaguars capable of operating, if necessary, from N.A.T.O. aircraft carriers? If that could be done without sacrificing too many of their other capabilities it would greatly increase their flexibility.
I now come to the whole problem of the way in which the R.A.F. is to perform the maritime rôle that is now being placed upon it. It can probably perform it most efficiently, as it did in the last war, around our coasts, or in the whole of the N.A.T.O. area, but I am thinking of the 50 per cent. of the oil required by Europe and by this country which travels from the Persian Gulf, round the Cape and up from the South Atlantic to Western Europe. I remind the House also that responsibilities of N.A.T.O. to the south end at the Tropic of Cancer. Therefore, there are no N.A.T.O. responsibilities between Cape Town and the Tropic of Cancer.
The specific question that I want to ask my hon. Friend is how these convoys will be protected. I asked the last Government that question, and I have asked this Government, but I have never had a clear answer. How are our convoys—I understand that there will be up to five a day in wartime—coming from

the Gulf, round the Cape into the N.A.T.O. area, going to be protected from air attack or from ships with surface-to-surface missiles in the area, shall we say, between Cape Town and the Equator, which is outside the N.A.T.O. area? There are no allied bases, unless we use South Africa and Rhodesia; the Simonstown Agreement allows us to use South African ports, but not its airfields. If my contention is correct and we cannot operate R.AF. Phantoms and Buccaneers from aircraft carriers, British or American, how would this vital protection on which our industrial effort and our war effort would depend be provided, because this is going to be one of the important rôles of the R.A.F.?
My hon. Friend may say that we are going to have the M.R.C.A. and that it is a world beater. I agree, but I say again that although it may be an excellent aircraft, for various reasons, when it was ordered by the previous Government it was designed for the European theatre, and its range was cut to about half that of the TSR2. Therefore, it is pretty useless in these oceanic areas. I should like an answer to my question how these convoys—and I understand on the highest authority that there are to be convoys in the next war—to be protected from air attack in the South Atlantic or the South India Ocean without bases and without long-range aircraft?
Finally, how is the R.A.F. carrying out its training of pilots for this new maritime rôle? How many of the Royal Navy pilots pushed out of that Service have transferred to the R.A.F.? Is the R.A.F. going to be able to give proper priority to this very important task? I am second to none in my admiration for the R.A.F., both in the last war and at present, but I believe that it is having a task thrust upon it which it is going to find difficult to perform even if that were its main rôle—and it is not; it is a secondary rôle. I doubt whether the R.A.F., with the equipment that it is likely to have in the next eight to 10 years, will be able to protect the vital convoys in oceanic areas.
I apologise for repeating that three times, but it is a question that I have asked of Governments in the past and to which I have never received a satisfactory answer; nor have the many people


who believe that this country stands or falls by sea communications, because we import by sea round the Cape 50 per cent. of all the oil that we use and 25 per cent. of all the food we eat. We must ensure for these ships protection in time of war. The R.A.F., as always, will do its best, but has it got the weapons, equipment and training to fulfil this task on top of its other perhaps higher priority but certainly equally vital tasks?

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When I listen to the sophisticated arguments on hardware that I hear my expert hon. Friends discussing in debates of this kind, I realise that it is a long time since I thought I knew about the eqiupment of the R.A.F. and what it was doing. In those days we were all experts; it was the only thing that kept us operating with any joy in the midst of the last war. I can barely remember who was on the Front Bench in those days. I think it was a National Member of Parliament who was Air Minister at the time, and when we were serving on various R.A.F. stations here, in Germany and elsewhere we could all have told him exactly how to run the war and how the R.A.F. should have performed.
Things have changed a great deal since those days. Nevertheless, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) about the high sophistication of equipment so far as airplanes are concerned. I have always been in the military field and I have always believed in the Marks & Spencer argument. I do not really think that if we had another war—which I pray we do not—it would be very many weeks after the start before we should be wanting much less sophisticated equipment, wanting to put people into machines that would be expendable because they were less costly. This is something which this country should consider when it is spending very large sums of money on airplanes or any other pieces of military equipment.
I do not really want to talk about that at all, however; I just want to say a few words about the R.A.F. and its personnel. I am fortunate that my links with the Royal Air Force have been maintained. First, because I have two Royal Air Force stations in my con-

stituency, Cottesmore and North Luffenham. In fact, I have three R.A.F. stations, if we count Wittering which is just outside my constituency, and most of the people from Wittering regularly come into Stamford.
The second reason for my association with the R.A.F. is that there is a branch of the Royal Air Force Association in the House of Commons of which I am Chairman. We do not meet very often, but we like to feel we are there to support the Royal Air Force if it needs support in political terms. There are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are members of that Association who are anxious to assist when they can.
I pay tribute to the relationships which the Royal Air Force has with the community in which it is set. I am sure that this applies to every area in the country and it certainly applies to my area.
There is in all the stations in my constituency a friendly association between the civilian population and the Royal Air Force personnel. The Royal Air Force personnel mix extremely well with the local population and take a full part in various activities. Once a year—sometimes more frequently—the stations open to the public, sometimes by invitation and sometimes by open invitation.
This connection between the Royal Air Force station and the community in which it finds itself makes the civilian population realise the value of the Service and what it does for the community. Furthermore, it enables the Service to have roots among those who are not in uniform. Nowadays it is difficult to tell who is in uniform and who is not since Service personnel outside Service hours normally do not wear uniform.
I was interested to see on Vote "A" that the total number of personnel has decreased in the period 1971–72 and 1972–73. For some reason we appear to be losing out on our target. The Air Force appears to have lost some 300 people. At a time when there is a great spur to recruitment and when recruitment generally in the Services is supposed to be good, I cannot understand why the Royal Air Force should have reduced its target. Perhaps an element of productivity is coming into the Royal Air Force in the same way as it has come into industry.
A curious fact is that we are to have a further 100 nurses to look after a complement that is being reduced by 300. This may be of advantage to those in the Service, but I do not know whether that number of nurses will be able to be recruited. At any rate, it is an interesting statistic.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West said about the auxiliary air force and I regret that it is not expanding. However, one must be realistic. If the opportunities were widened without limit in an auxiliary service, there would be a great demand for a part-time service. There would have to be a limit otherwise the cost would be too great, and in a professional service those who head up the service do not want to dissipate their resources by competing for civilian activities within that Service. One can understand their attitude because they are confined within a budget, and defence budgets do not normally increase but remain fairly static.
The R.A.F., like the Army and Navy, has to provide more out of less in that value for money has depreciated and therefore the increase does not match the inflation which is taking place. I can understand the resistance to any change, but personally I wish there were some expansion in the auxiliary service.
The R.A.F. is probably the most technical service of all. Never have so few provided the nation with such technical prowess for so little cost. One has only to visit a Royal Air Force station to realise that some of the best technical brains in the country—lower, middle and top—are to be found in the R.A.F. Industry gains advantage from this because many people who leave the service come out better trained than if they had spent all their lives in industry. I only hope that industry appreciates what it is getting.
The quality of the intake to the R.A.F. is as high as it has ever been. It is also matched by the quality of the training, which has always been maintained at a high level. I have always been proud of the fact that I was able to be a member of the R.A.F. I am glad that I have been able to maintain an association with it.
When during the war we used to return from night ops we would come back in

the early hours of the morning when there were very few people around. There is a similar situation when we look around us tonight. Exactly the same thing happens when the House of Commons does "night ops". Therefore, the attendance at this debate does not mean that the House has anything but the highest regard for the Royal Air Force.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: This debate on the Air Estimates is being conducted against the background of over a million unemployed in the United Kingdom. That fact must colour our attitude towards the total effect of the Defence Estimates, and the Air Estimates in particular, related to the level of employment.
There has in the past been an erroneous assumption that high Defence Estimates had a favourable effect on employment levels. It is now widely recognised in the trade union movement and in the country at large that high Defence Estimates have the reverse effect—in other words, they depress general employment levels.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the recent announcement about the two new cruisers which are to be built has had a depressing effect on unemployment?

Mr. Booth: What I am arguing—and I will produce evidence to support it—is that the effect of high Defence Estimates has been to depress the total level of employment or to increase the total number of unemployed. This is not peculiar to this country, but holds good generally in countries with populations of between 40 and 100 million.
The figures of manpower levels of the forces show that as our defence budget goes up our Service manpower goes down. Annexe "A" of the current Estimates demonstrate the situation. We see that from 1966 to 1971 there was a fall in the total United Kingdom Service personnel from 418,000 to 368,000. I do not believe there was a single year in which the figure did not fall. There is a slight increase in the 1972 Estimate to £372 million, but the forecast for 1973 is that there will be a further drop to £363 million. So, over the period from 1966 to 1973, while we have had an increase


in our total defence expenditure year by year, Service personnel requirements dropped fairly steadily.

Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman said that countries with populations of between 50 million and 100 million had an unemployment situation which varied with their defence expenditure; the higher the defence expenditure the more unemployed they had. On that basis, would Poland and East Germany, which have defence expenditures per head of population higher than our own—and as a percentage of G.N.P. defence expenditures higher than our own—have higher unemployment because their defence expenditures are going up?

Mr. Booth: I will try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in detail when I come to the calculation of defence expenditure. There is a difference in the method of calculation between Eastern and Western Europe, and this tends to be reconciled to some extent in the statistics produced by the Institute of Strategic Studies. I suggested figures of between 40 million and 100 million because a much bigger country of high economic strength—for example, the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A.—can spend not only a higher total defence budget, but a higher proportion of its G.N.P. on defence without the same detrimental effect on its total employment level which we in this country would suffer. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me a little longer, I will explain what I believe to be some of the reasons for this.
Let us stay with the facts, not the opinions, for a little longer and agree that, with an increasing total defence budget in this country, we have had a pretty steady fall in Service manpower requirements. I am not making a party point. I freely acknowledge that this took place both under Labour and Conservative Governments.
The more difficult thing to estimate is the effect of the Service and the Defence Estimates upon civilian employment. With the increase in the total defence budget from £2,545 million last year to £2,854 million this year, we have had an increase in unemployment to the highest ever post-war level, and it is now over one million. Industrial nations spending less than us in absolute G.N.P.
terms are sustaining higher economic growth rates and are therefore tending to have more people in employment. They have far lower unemployment figures.
Taking the comparative positions of Britain, West Germany and Japan, we see, year by year, that this is the case. Going back to 1965, we were spending 6·3 per cent. of our G.N.P. on defence, West Germany 5·6 per cent., and Japan 1·3 per cent.
Coming to 1967, Britain was spending 5·7 per cent., West Germany 4·3 per cent., and Japan only 0·9 per cent.
Bringing the position up to 1970, Britain was spending 4·9 per cent., West Germany 3·3 per cent., and Japan 0·8 per cent. Since then our defence budget has risen to 5·5 per cent., of our G.N.P., and it has stayed there for the last two years.
The interesting thing to note is that in every year we were the highest of the three nations. We do not need to go to the statistics to agree that the higher economic growth rate in Japan, particularly in civilian industry, is demonstrably—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is a certain difficulty with Defence Estimates. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the Air Estimates, into which he can go in any detail he wishes. However, any remarks addressed to defence both under Labour and Conservative in general or to the other Services should simply be passing references.

Mr. Booth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I strayed from order. I was tempted from the path of righteousness by an intervention from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) who challenged me on what I admit was a broad and general assertion which I made about employment levels.
I will turn specifically to the related effect of the Air and other Defence Estimates. I refer, first, to research and defence expenditure. That has risen significantly in this year's Defence Estimates. The demands of the R.A.F. in this sphere have continued to be fairly high.
Looking at the 1972 Estimates, we see a substantial number of major research


and development requirements. The interesting thing is that, although defence expenditure in last year's estimates was only £264 million, compared with a total on research and development this year of £330 million, last year's aircraft projects contained the M.R.C.A., which is a collaborative project, the Jaguar, a research and development project to improve the engine performance and aircraft systems of the Harrier and three helicopters, the Lynx, Gazelle and Puma. There is also the Buccaneer Mark 2 research project and the conversion of the Victor Mark 2.
In the guided weapons sphere there were projects to improve and develop the Sea Dart, medium-range surface-to-air guided weapon, which was admittedly for ships, but there were also the Rapier, the Anglo-French Martel, the Swingfire, the Seawolf, the Blowpipe and other studies on joint communications systems.
In electronics, there was Clansman, a net radio system for communications in the field, and Linesman/Mediator.
There were also major projects in nuclear propulsion, gas-turbine development for ship propulsion, ship-borne launching, anti-submarine torpedoes, sonars, and so on.
The Army also had its share of big demands on research and development.
It would be helpful if the Minister were to tell us the actual expenditure compared with the Estimates. I put this to the Minister, because I want to question whether it is possible to spend the proposed sum on research and development. It is one thing to put £330 million in Defence Estimates, part of which is the Air Estimates, and it is another thing to expend that amount. The amount which we, or any country of about our size, can spend on research and development depends not only on what the Exchequer is prepared to make available, but on the skilled manpower which is available. Some very elaborate research and development facilities are required to spend that amount. Does the Minister accept or refute the assertion that, over the last few years, irrespective of what we have put in our Defence Estimates, in practice we have not been able to spend much more than £250 million a year on defence research and development?
There have been limitations on what we should spend related to the size of our research and development establishments and the amount of research and development manpower available for these military projects. If it is the case, as is suggested by these Estimates, that we can increase our defence research and development expenditure to some £330 million, I put it to the Minister that the only way in which we can do it at present is by depriving civilian industrial research and development of its own manpower and facilities which it needs if we are to stay competitive in world markets in a number of highly sophisticated products.
That contention can be borne out by an examination of the research and development requirements which are taken up by the military. While I am speaking on the Air Estimates, I make it clear that I am not gunning for the Air Estimates. It is equally the case that the Admiralty delves heavily into research and development in marine engineering and naval architecture.
I have tried to make a proper assessment of the total proportion which has been taken by each of the Services of our total available research and development capacity. I can assure the Minister that it is a difficult exercise for a back bench hon. Member to undertake. It is very difficult to get all the figures that one requires if one is to do the sums properly.

Lord Lambton: If the hon. Gentleman wants the research and development figures, I shall be only too pleased to give them.

Mr. Booth: I welcome that assurance. I shall be delighted and surprised if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give me more than some of his predecessors were. The further back that one goes in the quest for figures, the more that one can get. In 1967, for example, one can get total figures for civil and military research and development. In 1966–67, the total research and development expenditure was £605 million by public and private research associations. Of that, the total military requirement was £275 million. At that time, the military were taking 30 per cent. of all the available research and development capacity in the country. If one breaks that down as


between the aircraft industry and the marine industries, one finds that civil firms in the aircraft and aerospace industry, with their research and development programmes, took £159 million, whereas the R.A.F. with its programmes took £178 million. In aircraft, 53 per per cent. of all research and development was taken for military purposes, and even at that time the spin-off value of the R.A.F.'s research and development was diminishing rapidly. Many of the projects carried out had little or no value for civil use. I shall give examples of that later.
I turn to what happened in a comparative area in order to compare the R.A.F.'s total demand for research and development with that of the Navy. In marine engineering, in 1966–67, we spent only £3·2 million in civil research. Naval research ran to £14 million. In other words, the Navy took 82 per cent. of the total research and development effort in that year in marine engineering and naval architecture. It is not surprising, therefore, that Japan ran away with world shipbuilding markets, taking a far higher proportion than we were, while we were sustaining a uniform merchant shipbuilding production at a time when world demand rose rapidly. The Japanese capacity has risen from 2 million to 14 million tons a year while ours has virtually stayed still.
I have contended that much of the so-called spin-off argument has ceased to be valid. That is partly because weapons systems have become so specialised, anyway, that the researcher who solves the major weapons problems often is producing a result which cannot have any civil application. But if we look at what this has cost the nation over the years, we see that there has been an enormous waste of research and development effort and of public funds. To see that in perspective, one has to examine the amount which has been spent on projects which have been cancelled. In 1952, the Ministry cancelled research and development projects on which £9 million had been spent. In 1954, it cancelled projects on which a total of £13 million had been spent. In 1955, it cancelled projects on which £33 million had been spent. In 1960, which included the Blue Streak cancellation, the figure rose to £92

million. By 1965, that being the year in which the TSR2 was cancelled, the total cost of cancelled projects had risen to £240 million.
Not only are we spending an enormous sum of our total research and development capacity in research projects; we are wasting money at a fantastic rate. It is a rate that we cannot afford as a nation which has to sell highly sophisticated manufactured goods in order to earn a living in the world.
Nowhere is that more true than in nuclear weapons systems. There, one has to develop three major research, development and manufacturing capacities. That is a point which is well understood and appreciated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). First, one has to produce fissile materials. That in itself is extremely expensive. Materials have to be produced to a very much higher specification than that required in practically any other material production operation in the world. Then one has to set up another industry of warhead assembly which in itself involves enormous research and development capacity. Thirdly, one has to develop and control the delivery system of the missile. The total research and development involved in that triple operation just to produce one branch of our total weaponry is enormous.
It is because the research and development cost of weaponry systems is so enormous that various Governments over a period of years have become involved in collaborative systems. Today, we have the M.R.C.A. which, I suppose, is the classic case. West Germany. Italy and the United Kingdom have combined to produce one of the weapons requirements of the nation. We also have Polaris, which is Anglo-United States, Martel, which is Anglo-French, combat and reconnaissance vehicles which are Anglo-Belgian, and so on. One can deduce from this that the cost of research and development is leading us into alliances which are based not only initially on the political requirements of defence policy but also upon the economic requirements of the weapons systems themselves. It may be that we shall find ourselves cemented into political alliances because of the technology costs of the weaponry systems.
The weaponry systems of the Warsaw Pact and of N.A.T.O. to some extent


may have been cemented together by the technology requirements of weapons production, and this very much affects our attitude towards our Air Estimates, because the use of the tactical and the strategic nuclear weapon, the value that one places on it and the rôle that one ascribes to it determine to a large extent what one would consider to be a proper rôle for the R.A.F.
Therefore it seems that whether or not these Air Estimates are justified is partly a matter of whether we are ready to assume that we can go on with the present position with Europe divided between the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O.
It is therefore appropriate on these Estimates to make one short but, I hope, relevant condemnation of the Government's policy in this respect. This Government have consistently refused to respond in the way in which it is necessary to respond to the invitation of the Finnish Government to go to a conference on European security. First, they said that they could not go without agreement on Berlin. Now that we have that, they say that they cannot go until it is ratified. When it is ratified, no doubt they will say that they cannot go without the agreement of our N.A.T.O. partners.
The right response is to say that all the nations of Europe—East and West, N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact—have a right to be represented individually in the determination of their own security. Allied to this is the whole question of the weaponry which is part of these Estimates, and particularly its R. and D.
With more than half the world's population living in conditions of starvation and poverty, we must determine the outcome of our own technological revolution. The choices before us are simple; we can perpetuate the misery of the underdeveloped countries while we produce a more sophisticated and even more terrifying weaponry or we can turn to the ways of peace to bring to the whole world better standards of life and freedom.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister said in opening the debate that he would deal with equipment questions. We are deeply critical of some of the things that he has said today. I could

not help hearing the Minister of State for Defence say, when we had our dispute over the HS1182, "This is a matter of judgment." I may be doing him an injustice, but I thought that the implication was, "We know in the Ministry and you do not."
May I be forgiven for a slightly less than reverent attitude towards the Ministry of Defence on equipment matters? Hindsight is easy, I know, but these are the men who were responsible for advising that the Spey engine should be put into a Phantom. Anyone who has cost any nation millions of pounds can hardly be regarded as infallible. I am not one to sneer at civil servants. I do not doubt their motives or their ability. My only deduction is that the Civil Service, like the rest of us, can easily be wrong and that any notion that we must not challenge the advice which is given because they know and we do not is not acceptable to this House.
I go further. I want to know what the Ministry of Defence has learned from its experience of putting that Spey engine into the Phantom. We should like to know what policy conclusions have been drawn by the Ministry of Defence from the highly expensive example of putting this engine into the Phantom and what general conclusions have been drawn in relation to "modifying" and tinkering with existing mechanisms and equipment. Tinkering is very expensive.
The cost of putting alien pieces of equipment in existing weapons is a theme which will come out time and again in the discussion on equipment.

Lord Lambton: The hon. Member is aware, of course, that the decision to put the Rolls-Royce Spey engine in the Phantom was taken by the last Administration.

Mr. Dalyell: I am absolutely aware of it and I do not seek to hide it. I am not making cheap party points. The conclusion which I am drawing—I thought that this was implicit in what the Minister said—is that we should not accept that because the Government have expert Civil Service advice and we in the Opposition of the Day do not that on such discussions as that on the HS1182, the Opposition should be careful and not vouchsafe an opinion.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Perhaps we can clear this out of the way. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said. When I said that this was a matter of judgment I did not intend the implication that automatically the Government knew better than the Opposition. I meant that it was a matter of performance between two different types of engine. That judgment on performance led to the selection of a certain engine. There was no implication that we knew infinitely better, or that we could not be questioned. Of course not.

Mr. Dalyell: As we have a little more time than we expected, let us go through the example of the Hawker-Siddeley 1182. This is for advanced conversion training to Phantoms, Jaguars and Harriers.

Mr. Wilkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. It is basically for training.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is an advanced trainer—an applied trainer to succeed the Gnat and the Hunter, which are in service with No. 4 Advanced Flying Training School at Valley and No. 229 Tactical Weapon Unit at Chivenor, and soon at Brawdy. It is not a conversion aeroplane; it has no operational conversion rôle.

Mr. Dalyell: It is fairly clear that I was referring to the conversion training of pilots to rather faster aircraft.
Not before time, we welcomed the announcement today, because the decision has been delayed for many months and has created certain problems in the industry. The Government have probably been finding difficulty in making up their minds between the Rolls-Royce Turbomeca Adour engine and the Bristol-Siddeley Viper 600, which is much less expensive. I have been persuaded that this decision is wrong.
It is not a question of carping, as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said. It is something much deeper. It is a feeling that some of us have that there are committees in the Ministry of Defence which are forever insisting that on all occasions the best must be provided, that nothing but the best will do. That is a very telling slogan when one is talking of nothing but the best for our boys who are engaged in a fighting situa-

tion, but it is quite different to argue that we must have nothing but the best in a training situation, because this is entirely different.
It may be true that the Bristol Viper 600 is thought to be coming towards the end of its life, but the question is whether the Ministry wants to train pilots on an engine that is more powerful. There is a very strong feeling that there would be accidents, if adjustments are not made to the Adour.

Mr. Wilkinson: No there is not.

Mr. Dalyell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to deny that?

Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, gladly. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a responsible Ministry or Government—I have the privilege to support both on this occasion, as always—would introduce into service an inherently unsafe aeroplane? We are here considering better fuel consumption, long endurance and low-level capability.

Mr. Dalyell: Not consciously. There is more to it—and the Government have accepted part of my case. If there were no more to it, why should it be necessary to take out the after-burner? The answer is simple. They dare not take the risk of training people with such a high-powered engine. It would be wrong to say that the Government would do anything to jeopardise the lives of trainee pilots, but that is not the issue. The issue is the expense of having a highly sophisticated engine which, for training purposes, must be altered. Is that denied?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this aircraft is taking the place of the Jaguar, which is infinitely more expensive.

Mr. Dalyell: Yes, for highly sophisticated training. But is it denied that training for the Jaguar could be done in an aircraft powered by the Super V 600 engine? I take it from the silence on the Government Front Bench that that is not denied.
Next, is it denied that the conversion will cost £10 million? If that is not denied, one can draw the conclusion that the kind of cost-effectiveness that goes on in this Department is strange indeed, for it seems that £10 million is being


needlessly spent, not on teeth but on training. Is that denied?

Lord Lambton: What on earth has led the hon. Gentleman to believe that it will cost £10 million?

Mr. Dalyell: I am quoting figures that have been given to us. I said that it is extremely costly to tinker about with engines. Learn from Spey-Phantom!

Lord Lambton: Who gave the hon. Gentleman the figures?

Mr. Dalyell: Friends intimately concerned in the industry. I repeat—£10 million!

Lord Lambton: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman giving him such figures as we have. In the meantime, it is not satisfactory for him to make wild accusations, involving millions of pounds. I am unable to understand precisely what case he is making. He accuses us of using an aeroplane the engine of which is too high-powered, though it is infinitely less powerful than that of the Jaguar. I cannot understand the logic of his case. Does he want us to use a much less powerful areoplane? Is he asking that we should shove people from it into extremely sophisticated aircraft?

Mr. Dalyell: It is absurd to talk about the "shove"—to use the noble Lord's word—from the Viper V 600 into a highly sophisticated aircraft.
My worst fears are, in a sense, confirmed about this Department because it is assumed that one must have, by right, the most expensive equipment, whatever the operational requirement. The view is taken that something less expensive must not be used. I look forward to the letter which the noble Lord has promised to send me. When we get down to arguing detailed cases, this great Department is far less impressive than when it sticks to generalities.
Throughout this discussion I have not been given the figure of the actual cost of these conversions. It was asked for at 5 p.m. Apparently little has been learned from the experience of putting the Spey engine into the Phantom. It may have happened under another Administration, but one would have thought that the departmental officials responsible for procurement would have learned a lesson

involving not thousands or tens of thousands of pounds but well over £1 million per unit. I gather that that figure is not denied?
That brings me to the rôle of Ministers in this Department. I hope that they see their job, first of all, as involving the questioning of every piece of advanced equipment that is put forward, possibly getting, from outside the Department, objective help; otherwise our defence budget mounts. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was right to dwell on the figure of £2,850 million.
When we get down to detail we find that it has crept up and up. I am surprised that the Minister should be so bewildered, because these are facts of which he has been given notice. If I am wrong, then let him tell the House the cost of altering this engine, because I can only draw the conclusion that the Defence Department has learnt very little, if anything, from the highly expensive lesson that it had when Spey was put in.

Mr. Wilkinson: What on earth would be the point, with what is basically a subsonic aircraft, of putting in a re-heat to career around the sky at a performance which the design of the aeroplane did not allow it fully to exploit? I can imagine nothing less safe than that. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have not applied the re-heat.

Mr. Dalyell: Then why chose an Adour engine when it has a re-heat actually encased in it? Keep Viper 600. That is the point that has to get home. It is unusual for the House to have time to go over this in such detail. I make no apology for doing so. This just confirms my worst suspicions that the Department of Defence has learnt nothing from the Spey Phantom fiasco. We can all make mistakes once. But we ought to learn.
The Government are asking Hawker-Siddeley Dynamics to look—I admit at once that it is only a feasibility study—at the possibility of modifying the American medium-range Sparrow Hawk, to incorporate advanced new British components which are developed by Marconi and E.M.I. This may well be another Spey. I would like to know how expensive it is to install these British variations. [Interruption.] If there is a complaint about Spey and Phantom, I am bound


to say that this had the attention of the Public Accounts Committee of this House for many hours. One can only assume that the Public Accounts Committee spent a lot of time preparing a report of which the Department of Defence took precious little notice.
On the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) in the case of the Sparrow Hawk and other collaborative projects with United States, first, are we very happy about the whole system of contractual arrangements? When we are dealing with the French or Germans, the language is different and we know that. When we are dealing with the Americans, we assume that the language is the same, and then find out that what is meant on this side of the Atlantic may be different from what is meant on the other side. The Defence Department knows very well the immense contractual difficulties which arise from that. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that if we were to buy American weapons we would often —not always—be wiser to have them off-the-shelf. I can only assume that putting these British variations into an American aircraft/missile is bowing to pressure from Harry Chapman Pincher of the Daily Express who thinks it is wrong to buy American equipment—it must have something British in it and this is some kind of a face-saver.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The point that I made in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), was that there was a certain demand coming from the hon. Gentleman's back benches—and his Front Bench—to employ people in this country. Therefore, they are producing something which, whether it is going to the American market or not, is creating confidence.

Mr. Dalyell: I can see that there are these pressures, but there has to be judgment, and sometimes it is so expensive to make comparatively minor variations that this is what swells the budget. Like many other hon. Members my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) was deeply worried about a defence budget which has now risen to £2,850 million. I remember what was said from these benches when my right hon. Friend the Member for

Aberavon was standing at the Government Dispatch Box in 1969 and the criticism that he got for not being able to control defence expenditure. Now that we have time, we ought to look at these things. I must express some doubts about the Sparrow Hawk. We are making this feasibility study, but how often is it thought that there will be any practice firing of it? It is extremely expensive to fire. Secondly, why are we doing this feasibility study at all?

Lord Lambton: How can we possibly criticise the feasibility study when no one knows whether it is feasible?

Mr. Dalyell: If a feasibility study is being done, presumably it is serious and there is the intention of firing this missile.
If it is a feasibility study merely to sound impressive the Government ought to tell us. Are they serious about this? It is strange that such a study should be done with what is a comparatively elderly American weapon. What are they up to? Have any discussions taken place with those who developed Sparrow Hawk, namely, the Raythion Corporation? It is our information that should the Government decide to go ahead there would be considerable patent troubles. What consideration has been given to these?
It is the duty of an Opposition to be constructive. The reason why I have criticised this project is that I contend that there was a good reason for concentrating on S.R.A.A.M.—the short-range air-to-air missile. The Ministry of Defence and Hawker-Siddeley think that they are on to a winner. Is the United States to participate in this programme? There is often a strong argument for partnership. Often the need for partnership on projects depends on whether there is a shortage either of money or brains. In this case Hawker-Siddeley is not short of money, and it is certainly not short of brains.
A decision will have to be made soon, because the United States would like to come in on this. This is a central policy decision about the extent to which, if we enter the Common Market, we can continue to have joint projects with the United States. We have a few joint projects now. There is the Harrier, and cooperation on the Pegasus engine. There


have been certain delays. To what extent is it policy to co-operate with the United States, and to what extent should we concentrate on European arrangements?
This brings me to the Lightning. Why has it gone back to having a rather old-fashioned machine gun? It used to have red-top missiles, such as Firestreak. It is no good the Minister screwing up his face. He said that he would make his speech on the "nuts and bolts" of defence, and these are such things. If members of the Government Front Bench are simply to shake their heads and to say "These details are not for us", I want to know what control they have over their Department and its spending. Returning to the Lightning—is the change the result of the change in the nature of warfare, whereby it is necessary to get close to identify a target and, having got close, a need for a short-range air-to-air missile?
At the moment there is a gap, because these aircraft have gone back to a pretty primitive machine-gun-type armoury, in the absence of a short-range air-to-air missile. Ministers may shake their heads and say that they wonder why we are asking these questions. It is the job of a Minister who has been 18 months in the Department to know about these things. I am willing to be told that we are wrong and misinformed, but it is our job to probe, and until such time as we get a Select Committee on Defence—which seems rather a remote possibility—this is the only chance we get to ask such questions.
We were told that the Jaguar would enter service in 1974. Why, if that is true, is it to enter the French service first in 1973? To what extent are Jaguars going to release Phantoms to take over from Lightnings as interceptor fighters in the United Kingdom air defence rôle? I should like to know about the United Kingdom home air defence rôle.
Then there is the Canberra. It is our understanding that the Mark 9 photographic reconnaissance rôle will be taken by Canberras. I should like to ask how many are going to be retained, and indeed, what the assessment is of the Department of the way in which the Canberras will now be sent to B.A.C., Warton, to undergo a zero timing, a complete reconstruction so that their flying hours start

from zero and their fatigue life, if one can talk in those terms, is extended, or perhaps doubled.
Then there is the Buccaneer. The Minister in his opening remarks referred to the Buccaneers going to Germany in a tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle. Presumably it is to supplement the Vulcans which were formerly part of the nuclear deterrent and are now tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft. The question here is, are the Buccaneers going to last for virtually the rest of the 70s, and how do the Government see the problem of the medium-altitude approach? To what extent are they supplementary in the reconnaissance rôle to the work of, for example, Fylingdales? I think there is a problem here.
On Nimrod, of course we have got the extra work that is given but I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness that of course we are thankful for these jobs, but, at the same time, we should like to see an organisation of society where in fact it would not be necessary to bring forward military projects with the main purpose of creating jobs because of the situation in which we find ourselves. We understand the position, but it is by no means ideal.
Can Nimrod take over the maritime rôle from the Shackletons, and are the 12 Shackletons likely to be used as airborne early-warning aircraft? Is this to be their rôle?
Again, there is the question of the radar gap round the United Kingdom at low altitudes. Is it true that we have to use the Shackletons in this rôle because we did not buy the Grumman Tracker as a supplement to the work done by Fylingdales? I think that is a fairly clear question to the Department.
On Support Command, the Belfast VC10s and the Britannias are being supplemented by the medium-range Hercules. Here I should like to strike a note of concord with the Minister and pay a tribute to what has been done by the R.A.F. crews flying in and out of Dacca during the recent trouble. There is no doubt that the pilots and the servicemen who maintained the flights did a very remarkable job. The Minister also mentioned the Victor Mark II, replacing the Mark I for in-flight refuelling. Are they to remain in service for the rest


of the 70s, and, if so, what are dangers of their suffering from metal fatigue, because there is a very considerable danger involved in using aircraft that have been in service for some time.
What we said about Nimrod applies also to Jetstream, and it behoves a Scottish Member of Parliament not to be curmudgeonly about them because they are going to be built by Scottish Aviation and give employment in Ayrshire, and Scottish Aviation are in the opinion of those of us who know them, a very good company. But, of course, some questions were raised on this by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) and I think the Government have to answer my hon. Friend because we would like to know what precisely is the operational requirement for the R.A.F. of the Jetstream. We would also like to know, he and I, what kind of contract this is to be. Seven and a half million pounds does seem to be rather a small amount of money for 25 aircraft, especially if a great deal, if not all, of a new production line has to be set out at Prestwick. My hon. Friend knows very well from his work before he came here what is involved in the setting up of new facilities. Some of the work could be done at Prestwick before, but we are involved in considerable expense and we want to know that that£7½million is a realistic figure.

Mr. Bishop: Is my hon. Friend aware that the people in Hawker Siddeley in the Manchester and Stockport area regard the Jetstream as a kind of mongrel aircraft, made in pieces in other parts of the world, as compared with the HS748 which is entirely British made?

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has raised a question which the Government have to answer. They should spell out the reasons why Jetstream was preferred to the Hawker-Siddeley 748. Was the National Defence Industries Council consulted about this? The Government may have a good answer. They may say that Jetstream has prospects of sales to other air forces, air taxi operators and third level airline operators. That may be so, but nevertheless, in fairness to those who work at Hawker Siddeley, which has very many development area sub-contracts in Scotland and elsewhere,

we should be told why Jetstream was preferred to the Hawker-Siddeley 748.
It would be interesting to hear the results of the evaluations that took place at Boscombe Down, which I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Newark knows about very well, when evaluations were also made of the North American Rockwell Hawk Commander. It is right that we should go for a British aircraft, but we ought to be told the reasons why a very much cheaper, in this case, North American aircraft, when small quantities were wanted, was not ordered. That should be spelt out because the extent to which the Ministry of Defence gives employment in the development areas should at least be known. I am not saying that the decision is wrong. It is probably right. But at least we have a right to know the thinking behind it.
On Jetstream, it is a fair question to ask what is the price of the French Tubermeca engines, because Jetstream is involved across the sterling exchanges, and the Hawker-Siddeley 748 is a wholly British aircraft. We would like to know the payments made to the French company. Again, it may be justified, but we should like to know because any extra cost of getting engines from France—and there may be an extra cost—works itself into the price of the contract, and when we are concerned about the escalation of defence costs, as we must be, at least it is legitimate to ask that question.
On helicopters, the Anglo-French Gazelle, we take it, is used for training purposes and the Puma for tactical transport. What is the future of the WG13, particularly if there are problems with the Bristol Siddeley 360 engine, and any extra costs that may have resulted from recent troubles at the Rolls-Royce small engine department at Neasden? Before anything is said about the WG13, we should like to know what the latest production cost estimates are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who could not be here for the debate, asked that the questions of Linesman and Mediator should be raised. Some extremely pertinent questions were asked of his Government by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson). Those questions should be answered by the Ministry of Defence.
Before leaving technical matters, I have one other question. For the first time in taking part in, I think, nine Air Estimates debates, there has been no mention of the Meterological Office. I should like to praise its work. It is subject to a good deal of ribaldry. A particular question is how the I.B.M. 360/195 computer is working out and whether the Government can say anything about the work being done at the Met, Office. I come now to what Ministers will realise is a rather less contentious part of my speech. On page 19 of the Supplementary Estimates 1971–72, Class XII, 5, we see that provision for British Indian Ocean territories has gone up from £830,000 to £1,230,000, an increase of about 33 per cent. What is happening the British Indian Ocean territories to warrant the expenditure of that much more money? A great deal could be done with it, for example in the provision of facilities such as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) referred to. These are not insignificant amounts and it seems curious that expenditure should suddenly rocket on these territories.
I turn for a moment to manpower. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon raised the question of the school-leaving age and recruitment. The Minister was quite right in arguing for a higher standard of recruits. But we are not solely concerned with entrants but with what happens to those entrants when they join the Service. I come back therefore to the scheme mentioned last year called the starred mechanic scheme. My right hon. Friend did a good deal to start the scheme. It offers a guarantee of fitter training within the first two years of entry into the R.A.F. It increases the number of available fitters and I have talked to many young men who have an extremely high opinion of the training they receive. I would say, with some knowledge of these matters, possibly that the Services in general and the R.A.F. in particular offer the best technical training that any apprentice in the western world could hope to have. Very considerable praise should be heaped on those who undertake the starred mechanics scheme. I am sure it is the same in the dockyards. Those of us who have had an opportunity to see it are extremely impressed. I should like the Government to give some kind of report on this scheme.
There is also the question of university cadetships. This scheme looks good and its second intake of graduates for flying training have arrived at Cranwell. Has there been any estimate of the success or failure of the scheme? I was interested in what the Minister said about the Royal Air Force College and basic training and the changeover from the College of Air Warfare at Manby to be concentrated at Cranwell. A part of this is the engineering training which is very important, and some of us were a little surprised at the ratio of officers to men in the Royal Air Force. I suspect that this is now all to do with the number of engineer and flying officers. Engineer officers are becoming more and more important in any air force and we should keep a careful watch on the progress that is made not only to give them training in the first place but to continue it.
Reports on the cadet forces are again favourable and I notice in evidence to the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee Mr. Cauthery of the Department judges the schemes were very worthwhile.
It would be churlish of me not to welcome the good recruiting figures and to welcome that the tail has been trimmed a bit. The Government can claim that perhaps the R.A.F. has been able to dispose of many of those it might have recruited in its endeavour to become more efficient and this is on the credit side. But I suspect this is something to do with the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friends. The sombre fact, as Members from Wales and Scotland know only too well, is that as soon as unemployment reaches a certain critical level it leads to more recruits to the Services—often high-calibre recruits—from among young men who do not want to be idle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) told a powerful if sad story about a senior N.C.O., who, I believe, was his constituent. I will not go over that story or what my hon. Friend heard from his constituent's wife. I draw the conclusion from what my hon. Friend said that there is an obligation to long-serving n.c.o.s. What have the Government to say about how they can honour such commitments? It is rather difficult to do so at a time when certain sectors


of the Service are being cut, but this is a very real human problem. It is not wholly a matter of finance; it is partly a matter of a man's dignity.
I was very struck by the family story told by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West. I do not have statistics showing the incidence of broken marriages in the Services, but there is a general impression that it is significantly more than in civilian life. The suspicion is that this is partly to do with the difficulty of obtaining housing. In fact, it is partly about housing. I suspect that, as was said last year, while many local authorities are very good at meeting their obligations to Servicemen others are not. What will the Government do about the laggard authorities? What pressures are being put on them in areas where obtaining married quarters becomes difficult?
We welcomed what the Minister said about built-in furniture and movable furniture. I welcome his effort to get single rooms at permanent stations, and the notion of the 12-to-14-room complex built round a sitting room. It is appreciated that there are quarters with central heating at Lossiemouth. I am sure that the Minister will give my hon. Friend the Member for Newark an answer on R.A.F. Syerston. My hon. Friend knows far more about the matter than I do, so I shall not go into that.
Last year I thought—and here I must admit error—that there was a future in a closer link between the R.A.F., B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., and that a number of pilots due to leave the R.A.F. could go into B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. That is very difficult, because B.O.A.C. has ceased for a period of months to take in any entrants. It has obligations to its own pilots. The rate of expansion in civil airlines has been nothing like what was expected. In those circumstances, R.A.F. pilots may find difficulty. It is calculated that there are 1,156 highly-trained pilots leaving the R.A.F. over a 10-year period. When it came to the crunch many would want to continue in the skilled trade that they know so well. Perhaps it is very difficult for them to be fitted into civil airlines, other than small commercial airlines. I should like to hear the Government's thinking on this problem.

Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the present circumstances of a high overall level of unemployment there is a case for pressing the Government to extend the period over which they normally extend assistance to ex-Service personnel seeking re-employment?

Mr. Dalyell: There is a case for that. Perhaps the Government will comment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd asked about the circumstances in which Servicemen were killed in the Gulf, and what obligations we have in Oman. Paragraph 33 of the Defence White Paper must be explained, and my hon. Friend deserves an answer.
Last year we went in some detail into language training. I do not propose to go over that again, except to ask what the Government's thinking has been, and whether they have carried out the undertakings they gave then.
Finally, I want to reflect in rather an interrogatory way on the rôle of the R.A.F. in relation to the space industry. My information is that the procurement agency under Derek Rayner has proved that it looks like being a success; at least there are no signs that it is not going to be success. There is a problem that perhaps in this set-up there is not much room for the scientists, but I can see the other argument that the Service officers have legitimate careers expectations and they, too, should be given key positions. There is competition for key positions in the procurement agency.
Perhaps I could gently say that I wonder whether there is a slight bias against the scientists in the Civil Service who might expect some of the key jobs. I say it very gently. It would not be sensible to make that a criticism.
I also understand that the National Defence Industry Council, which was perhaps conceived out of the problem of M.R.C.A., has been a success; that the Secretary of State for Defence has taken the chair at several meetings, and that this is regarded by industry as a success.
Of course, having said that so much is so good, there is another very real and much wider problem, namely, that if we are going to attract into the R.A.F. that element of the highest quality of recruit—which means some of the most


technically competent people in our society—what incentives do we give them? It may well be that the incentive of a possible war—which we all hope will not happen—and the incentive of bombing some other country are not sufficient for many of the recruits that the R.A.F. would like to attract. That would be agreed ground.
Therefore, the question arises as to what other incentive can be given. Here I go back to a question that I raised in the Defence debate—the whole nature of the British space effort. A very urgent decision has to be made by Government, by the summer, and this is the decision of the post-Apollo programme. If the hon. Member for Woking thinks that this is a light matter, I can assure him that industry does not, because industry of the kind that he and I are interested in is vitally concerned about whether or not we are going to participate in the post-Apollo programme.
It certainly does not lie with me, on this occasion, to say whether we should accept an offer that was first made by the Americans two years ago to this country and to Westerin Europe to participate in the shuttle, or any of the other post-Apollo projects. Whether we do or not is of the utmost consequence to the electronics industry, and if one talks to serious people in the electronics industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark knows very well, one finds great interest, because those jeople will not remain at the frontiers of technological knowledge in microcircuitry unless we, too, participate.
This is highly expensive. I am just putting it in question form. If we do, should not the responsibility be vested in the Services, and particularly in the R.A.F., because every other country carries out this kind of project for some reason or another—and probably very different reasons—and invests it in the armed forces. The Soviet Union have it in their armed forces. The United States have it basically in their armed forces, and so do the Chinese, with whom I talked in Peking in November, about their satellite and communications capacity.

Mr. Onslow: What does the hon. Gentleman want to put into the R.A.F.?

Mr. Dalyell: Responsibility for any British participation in the United States

post-Apollo space programme. This is a matter of considerable industrial importance to this country. The hon. Member for Woking asks, in a fairly ribald manner, why I want to have it in the R.A.F. I have to ask a different question. Why is the Ministerial Aerospace Board mentioned in the Defence Estimates, when the board is said to be co-ordinating civil projects? This appears in paragraph 19 of the Defence Estimates. If I am asked in a bewildered way what on earth it has to do with the Ministry of Defence, I then say, if I am told that the Government have responsibility for the National Defence Industries Council, to whose success I pay tribute, the Ministerial Aerospace Board which is mentioned in the White Paper is a farce.

An Hon. Member: This is a filibuster.

Mr. Dalyell: This is of consequence to industry. It is not a filibuster. There are occasions when the hon. Member laments that we have insufficient time to go into these details. If we had a Select Committee on Defence I would make a much shorter speech but, since we have not been given a Select Committee on Defence, I take the opportunity to make a longer speech, leaving the Minister 50 minutes in which to reply to these questions in some detail.
I end by asking about the Ministerial Aerospace Board. Either it is of consequence or it is not. If it is not of consequence, why does it appear in the Defence Estimates? Is it a charade or is it meaningful? This is the question to which British industry and the American Government want an answer.

9.11 p.m.

Lord Lambton: There have been many interesting contributions to our debate today. I am a little staggered by what I can only describe as the questionnaire directed at me during the last 40 minutes. I can only compare it to the Christmas quiz which appears in our national newspapers and is guaranteed to keep the whole family amused over a long weekend. If I do not answer all the questions which have been asked, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will get in touch with me, I will answer them.

Mr. Dalyell: I will.

Lord Lambton: It is not possible for me to answer such rapid-fire questions without due preparation.

Mr. John Morris: It was the custom in my time, if defence questions were not answered in the course of the debate, for the Minister himself to write to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not a question of hon. Members getting in touch with the Minister, but the other way round.

Lord Lambton: I shall be only too pleased to do that. Some of the questions I have answered, some I will answer, and I shall also write a good many letters to the hon. Member for West Lothian.
I will deal first with the interesting and constructive speech of the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), and try to answer some of his questions. He asked about the forward look in the R.A.F., and how necessary it was for the R.A.F. to have a forward look. In a comparatively few words it is extremely difficult to give detailed information about the manpower requirements of the R.A.F. over the years ahead. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the subject is extraordinarily complex, and conditions change so rapidly from time to time that it is not possible for me to answer accurately too far into the future.
In 1972–73 and 1973–74 we expect to need substantially fewer airmen recruits than we sought in the previous two years. We expect the requirement to increase after 1973–74 until by the end of the decade it reaches a figure higher than we have been able to achieve in the past. This, of course, is where the crunch could come. But even this has to be qualified, because one really can have no idea so far ahead precisely what the requirements are going to be, and it will depend upon the economy drive, and so on.
The next question which the right hon. Gentleman asked was if there had been any rationalisation lately in the Ministry of Defence. I would say that the most effective piece of rationalisation has been the establishment of the Procurement Executive as part of the Ministry of Defence, because that really brings procurement under one roof. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is really working very well and this is one really substantial success which we have had in this

field on which Members on both sides of the House will agree.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of research and development costs, and it was raised also by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—the latter in a very brave speech, if I may say so. Although in this House we hold very different opinions we cannot but admire an hon. Member who, coming from a constituency so devoted to the building of ships for warlike purposes, proclaims his point of view with such honesty. Although I do not, of course, accept that point of view, I think it is very refreshing to hear someone so absolutely straightforward in what he says.
The right hon. Gentleman raised this question of research and development costs, which for 1972–73 are expected to be £330 million. I should like to make it quite plain that only a proportion of this expenditure is due to the development of equipment for the Royal Air Force and thus is strictly relevant to this debate. With permission, however, I will deal with this point on a more general basis as it obviously affects all three Services.
I should first make it clear that approaching half the increase compared with last year's expenditure is due to pay and price escalation, although there has still been a significant increase in real terms. Expenditure on defence research and development reached its bottom in 1970–71, when it was £222 million, as I think was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The reason it had sunk so low at that time was really the cuts or reductions in the Services which were imposed by the previous Administration in the 1967 Defence Review.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, research and development expenditure on major defence equipment is spread over a long period of time and is planned some years in advance, and many of the projects on which such expenditure is now reaching a peak are those which he himself approved some years ago. I think he has every reason to be pleased with this, because some of the things he set in motion are doing well at the present time. That really explains the matter as far as I can do so without going into details, which the right hon.
Gentleman will understand that I really cannot do.
Another point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the question of the M.R.C.A., about which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Woking also spoke. There is no doubt at all that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the M.R.C.A. is the success that it looks like being. There will probably be a further announcement this autumn when we can say what further stage has been reached. But at present things have gone in a satisfactory way, costs have been comparatively well-contained and we have every reason for satisfaction in the way things are going at present. We shall be able to tell the right hon. Member more about this matter in the autumn. In July and August we reviewed the progress made during the first full year of development and this was generally satisfactory. I do not know whether there is anything more I can say about that.

Mr. John Morris: Would the Minister give an assurance that the next statement, as distinct from the last one in September, 1971, will be made to the House of Commons?

Lord Lambton: Certainly—and the nearer we get to this aircraft going into production, the more possible it will be for statement to be rather fuller. One of the reasons that there have not been many statements is that there is not all that much to say.
The question of aero-engine repair and overhaul was raised by the right hon. Member for Aberavon and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I should like to go into that matter fully. All aero-engine repair and overhaul is undertaken in industry, except for a small number of engines repaired or overhauled at the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleet-lands. Under rationalisation agreements the Royal Navy as from 1st April will concentrate its facilities at Fleetlands on rotary wing aero-engines, including some of the Royal Air Force. Most fixed-wing aero-engines will go to industry, and this in effect means Rolls-Royce. There is a continuous dialogue with this company to ensure that it fully understands and makes every effort to meet Service requirements. Studies have been made to

establish all the factors which have an effect on the total time engines are not available to flying units. Further studies into each factor are being made to see whether any improvements can be made in the time absorbed. There is no intention to duplicate the costly and complex equipment required for engine repair and overhaul which exists in industry.
There is, however, a need to provide service technicians with a broader experience of work on engine overhaul, especially on future modular types of aero-engine, and to have some acceptable procedure in case the resources of industry become unavailable and in case of emergency. A study is being made of the feasibility of setting up a minimum viable capacity in Maintenance Command. I cannot forecast its outcome.

Mr. Onslow: Would my hon. Friend widen the study to examine whether the Royal Air Force can support the same kind of study as B.O.A.C. has supported. If an airline can do it, it cannot be all that costly. Would he consider the desirability of taking aero-engine work back into the services and putting airframe work out to industry? This might have an electric effect on Rolls-Royce.

Lord Lambton: I am afraid I shall have to give my hon. Friend the same sort of reply I gave him before, namely that we are looking carefully at this subject. My hon. Friend may not find the answer totally satisfactory, but that is what we are doing at present. He might like me to go more carefully into the question of the allocation of repair work between industry and defence establishments. This is governed by considerations of the importance of the aerospace industry of having defence aircraft repairs allocated to it and the need for viable repair capacity within the Service. That gives the main lines upon which we are trying to work at present.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) asked about Linesman and the vulnerability of the West Drayton complex to conventional attack. Despite all the talk or mention that there has been in the newspapers about covering up, I should like to try to be as frank as possible on this matter. I have no intention of covering up anything that the House should know.
The record shows that a great deal of information has been provided about Linesman/Mediator. This system was conceived a number of years ago under a different defence policy with greater emphasis on the likelihood of nuclear escalation than we would think right today. West Drayton was and still is the right location for a system which combines air space management with a defence capability. That needs still exists, and the West Drayton complex will meet it.
However, the defence situation is not static. Against the background of a flexible defence strategy, we cannot rule out the possibility that conventional strikes into this country might be attempted in certain circumstances. Precisely what this risk is one could argue about all night long. But neither has the Linesman/Mediator project remained static. What now goes on inside this famous building at West Drayton is not something which the House would expect me to describe in public. Its air space management function is crucial and its defence capability is important and valuable. It really is not a white elephant. As far as the defence function is concerned, significant margins of security have been and are being built into the air defence system elsewhere. We are now studying what further measures may need to be taken to maintain the viability of the air defence system.
I do not know whether that answers my hon. Friend. I have given as much of an answer as I can on this subject, which he must realise has certain aspects which I cannot really disclose.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. However, I also raised the question of cost. I admit that he wrote to me about it, but I have seen varying figures given for the cost escalation. Will he tell me something about that?
The second point, which my hon. Friend has really answered, is that we have an adequate air defence system. Clearly at the moment we are really talking about Mediator. It is Linesman which, in a sense, has fallen down.

Lord Lambton: The cost at the moment is approaching £100 million, which is considerably over the original

estimate. We have an air defence system, but that system, though good, is not perfect. It has run into certain difficulties. However, that system is of the greatest value to us at present.

Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a little more information? On page 54 of the 1971 Estimates the total resarch and development costs given for electronic projects is £41 million. On page 53 four projects are listed. Three major projects are named, and the rest are covered by a communications heading. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that one of those four projects cost £100 million and that the £41 million should be in excess of that £100 million?

Lord Lambton: The total estimated cost of the Linesman project is approximately £100 million.
I now turn to other subjects which have been brought up in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking asked why we could not develop the Pegasus for the V/STOL for the Fleet. We are completing a feasibility study on the Pegasus 15 engine. It is too early to say whether further steps will be taken. My hon. Friend will recognise that the Pegasus 15 cannot be accommodated in the existing Harrier without some aircraft modification. Indeed, that was a subject which my hon. Friend raised at the end of his speech. The Royal Navy and the Air Force are working very closely together on this at present. The studies have not yet been completed and will not be for some months. As soon as they are, I or my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy will inform the House.

Mr. Onslow: I hope that the manufacturers are not being left out of this and that, when it comes to deciding where the best export markets are, the advice of the manufacturers will be taken seriously into account. It may be that if the prospects are as good as the manufacturers believe, a substantial contribution on the airframe side might be forthcoming from them.

Lord Lambton: All that we can do at the moment is wait and see how the studies turn out. Anything else would be inopportune at the moment.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked what were the export prospects


for Nimrods. A number of countries are interested in the aircraft, especially Canada. The firm and the Ministry of Defence have done their best to help the Canadians have all the information that they need. They have not yet made a decision. However the additional order for the R.A.F. and the continuation of the production facilities should improve the prospects of obtaining export orders.
There is no doubt that by keeping the Nimrod in production, we have widened the possibilities of its being exported. This goes rather across the arguments of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who seems to believe that the more we spend on armaments, the more unemployment there is. There is no doubt that by keeping the Nimrod in production we are employing men who otherwise would have been unemployed. We shall continue to employ them in the future if export orders keep up, as we hope.
I turn to the humanitarian point raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who wanted to know why the husband of a constituent of his was not allowed to extend his service from 15 to 22 years, and why men with long and useful service behind them should be thrown out before they want to leave.
There has never been an automatic right in the Air Force to extend the length of an existing engagement to 22 years. A quota system has been necessary for a long time to ensure that the R.A.F.'s structure of age and rank does not become too unbalanced. In present conditions, with a potentially large surplus of airmen over our immediate requirements, it has been necessary to apply stricter control to extensions of service. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian interest and that many men who wish to continue serving in the R.A.F. will be disappointed by our inability to retain them. But I am afraid that we cannot afford to grant a completely new right to extend service when the result of doing so will be to overload the R.A.F. with senior N.C.O.s and Warrant Officers and deprive the younger short-service men of their chances of promotion. If we were to allow this to happen, we should not get the short-service men who are so necessary at the moment.

Mr. John: That was not my question. Could we not cushion these people by

allowing them, either temporarily or for long periods, to extend their service by remustering so as to give them freedom from the spectre of being thrown into civilian life at 40 plus with no recognisable civilian trade, when unemployment is high?

Lord Lambton: That is a slightly different question. This is a real problem. We do all we can to train people to go into civilian life. The same argument applies. If this principle went too far, there would still be an overload of a type of service man who would make the R.A.F. uneconomic. But I appreciate the hon. Member's humanitarian interest.
The right hon. Member for Aberavon asked a question which I have already partially answered—what was being done to reduce engine turn-round time. We have set in motion studies to establish all the factors which make up the total turn-round time for an aero engine undergoing repair and overall. Studies are being made to see whether any improvements can be made in the time taken at present.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister's reply is exceedingly disappointing—that a study has now been set up. This matter was of immense importance in my time at the Ministry, more than 20 months ago. I raised it in the Estimates debate last year. The Minister now belatedly says that something is being done. This is of great importance.

Lord Lambton: Something is continually being done to see whether the matter can be improved. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman set up a study into this problem when he was in office. But we are trying to see whether we can improve this turn-round time.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) who has courteously written to inform me that he could not be here, wrote about the implications for employment of the 1182. The employment implications for Hawker Siddeley Aviation at its factories at Kingston, Brough and Hamble for a programme of work running for eight or nine years will peak at 2000 or a little more. The employment implications for Rolls-Royce at Derby will peak at 275, approaching 300. The engine work is to be shared with France.
The hon. Member for Newark asked about the future of Syerston. I have written to him about this. From early 1975, it will be needed as the relief landing ground for Cramwell. Meanwhile, it will remain on its present care and maintenance basis. I cannot yet say whether any part of the airfield or its facilities will become surplus to our needs. If so, we will dispose of it in the normal way, and I will get in touch with him.

Mr. Bishop: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his letter. My right hon. Friend put this in mothballs about three years ago or longer. If nothing is done until 1974–75, deterioration may set in. If it is not to be a relief airfield, does one need it at all? If it is necessary for that purpose, to what extent will it be used and what other facilities will be available to local authorities in the area?
From the employment point of view, one looks to light industry to be established in this sort of area. There are other uses, such as for local authority services like education. One can envisage the use of this sort of area for leisure purposes, exhibitions and so on. An early decision in this matter would be welcomed, especially to avoid further deterioration.

Lord Lambton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and I will let him know more about this. I assure him that if there is any deterioration, steps will be taken to see that it is checked at once. However, this airfield is required for a relief ground for Cranwell.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked a number of general questions. He really wanted to know about the Nimrod maritime use and our policy for getting oil from the fields to this country. In other words, he questioned me about our ability to defend our ships bringing oil from parts of the world—I imagine that he had the Gulf particularly in mind—to the United Kingdom.
It must be admitted that with the scale of our defences, this is a commitment which we cannot take on. However, as we are entering Europe, perhaps we can try to have a N.A.T.O. European policy which will widen its spheres of interest. My hon. Friend raised a valid point and I agree that it is not possible to say that

everything inside the Tropic of Cancer should be safe while everything outside should be neglected.
The prospect of our entering Europe is bright from this point of view. We may be able to extend the area of N.A.T.O.'s activities in Europe and it is to be hoped that our European partners will join us in looking at things in a wider context. To be frank, our present resources do not enable us completely to ensure that ships come safely from the Gulf to this country. I do not think any Government has had the resources to be able to guarantee this.
Several hon. Members asked if the R.A.F. police were 60 per cent. below establishment. I was also asked if there were poor promotion prospects in the police. This aspect was raised in connection with St. Athan, and I was asked if greater security was needed.
The R.A.F. police have not found recruitment as easy as the majority of R.A.F. trades, but their strength is nothing like as far below establishment as hon. Members have feared. Promotion prospects in the police vary from time to time, as they do in other parts of the R.A.F. A principal object of our manpower planning is to ensure that serious disparities between promotion opportunities in one branch and another are balanced out so that no one group is particularly badly placed for several years at a time. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) asked about Bulldogs for air experience flights on basic training. We do not envisage replacing the Chipmunks in the air experience flights with the Bulldog. For basic training we expect to make use of the Jet Provost for a good many years. It will not be necessary for us to decide on the replacement for some time.
I hope the House will forgive me for taking these questions in such a strange order. A point was raised by the hon. Member for Pontypridd and also by the hon. Member for West Lothian who asked about Oman and Britain's secret war there. There is nothing secret about the United Kingdom's long standing treaty of friendship with the Sultanate of Oman. This was signed in 1951 and published as a Command Paper; it was followed by an exchange of letters also published. Stemming from these understandings and from agreements which


we have with the Sultanate governing the use of the important R.A.F. staging post at Masirah, it has been policy under successive administrations to provide training and assistance to the armed forces of the Sultanate, to second British personnel and provide facilities for the Sultanate airfield at Salalah.
All this has been the case for many years; the importance of the assistance has certainly increased since the Sultanate was faced with serious subversion in the Dhofar, supported, we believe, from outside. We believe it is in the interests of stability that we should continue to assist the Sultanate in the traditional ways which we have done in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who has just left the Chamber, asked if any lives have been lost as a result of defects in the Spey engine. I have looked into this and can find no evidence at the moment that any flying accidents have been attributable to the Spey, but I will confirm this and let him know.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) raised the point of the civil use of airfields and I know that he is particularly anxious about Thorney Island and what one might describe as the Portsmouth complex. This has been the subject of some of his questions. Wherever possible, civil use of R.A.F. airfields is permitted, and a large number are open to civil users provided the prior permission of the commanding officer is obtained.
As to the joint use of the service airfields in the Portsmouth area, while the provision of facilities for civil aviation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I can only repeat that we shall be happy to take part in discussions with the local authorities concerned. This suggestion came from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, and we are putting it forward as quickly as we can. I understand from the hon. Member that there is some urgency in this matter.
I turn to some of the points the hon. Member made in winding-up. He asked about the British Indian Ocean territory and if I could explain how the estimates had suddenly risen this year to £830,000. Actually the sum fell this year to £100,000 from £830,000, so there is a very substantial decrease not an increase. In

the White Paper page 18, the right-hand column is 1972–73, the left-hand column is 1971–72.
As for our decision to adopt the HS 1182AJ with the unreheated Adour engine, the hon. Gentleman obviously feels very strongly about this. He asked why we did not choose the Viper engine; what were the employment prospects with the 1182AJ, and would it cost £10 million to remove the after-burner from the Adour? He is quite right, we did consider the Viper very carefully. We preferred the Adour because the performance of the aircraft with the Viper engine would not fully have met the requirements of the R.A.F. We are talking of the advanced trainer which took the place of the Jaguar which would have been more advanced. The hon. Gentleman will understand that particularly where contracts have not been completed I cannot comment on his figure of £10 million. I can, however, say, and this has some relation to some of his worries, that the bulk of the expenditure on the Adour programme will not be due to the removal of the after-burner but to the support of the flight development and testing programme. I will certainly let the hon. Member know more about this later. He may well have misconceived fears about this.
As for employment, we expect that the air frame work will be carried out at Kingston, Brough and Hamble. The programme, including developments and production, will extend over several years and employment is expected to peak at 2,000 or a little more. The engine work will be shared with the French. The United Kingdom share will be rather more than half and will be undertaken at Derby and by Rolls-Royce sub-contractors with employment at peak approaching 300. If as we hope there are export orders these figures could increase.
I was surprised at the suggestion that we were contemplating an aircraft which could be dangerous to pilots in training. The previous plan adopted by hon. Members opposite contemplated the supersonic Jaguar as an advanced trainer which would, following the logical argument of the hon. Member have been a far more dangerous trainer. Here we are speaking of an aircraft of more modest performance and, this must be stressed, an unreheated engine.

Mr. Dalyell: We must get this right. I was never suggesting that Ministry of Defence would risk the lives of trainee pilots. My suggestion was totally different, that in order to provide a trainer costly alterations had to be made to an engine. There is a great difference.

Lord Lambton: I never meant to convey that the hon. Member was saying that but it was better he should make a clear explanation because otherwise his words could have read rather differently.
He asked me about Jetstream and the £7½ million order. This order is subject to contractual negotiation and I cannot comment on the £7½million. I can say that the H.S. 748 would have been more expensive as well as being larger and more complex than the Jetstream. The hon. Gentleman also asked me when Jaguars will replace the Phantoms and release them for air defence. The Phantoms will replace the Lightning in the United Kingdom, Germany and Cyprus. Canberras will be retained for reconnaisance, until the M.R.C.A. comes into use. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot be too precise.
I was also asked about the Lightning and the gun with which it is fitted. That gun is additional to air-to-air missiles and it has value in various circumstances, including the situation in which it is desired to fire a warning shot.
I have tried to pick as many questions as I could and I have gone as far as I can. I will certainly let the hon. Member know the answers to any questions which I may have omitted.

Mr. Wall: Can my hon. Friend give me an answer about the cross-operation

of R.A.F. Phantoms and the R.N. aircraft carriers because this is of considerable importance in future?

Lord Lambton: This is more a question for the Navy than for me. I will certainly get in touch with my hon. Friend about this. I would rather do that than make some comment which was not strictly accurate.
I end by answering one question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) who asked about R.A.F. numbers dropping from 1971 when recruiting was good. There are two reasons for this. First, we are still seeing the last effects of our withdrawal from the Gulf and of the reductions of our Forces elsewhere outside Europe. Secondly in 1972–3 we shall begin to benefit from the efforts to use manpower more efficiently and economically. My hon. Friend will appreciate we cannot recruit large numbers of men irrespective of whether we use them, simply because large numbers are applying. I have, Mr. Speaker, tried to cover a very large variety of points in a rather staccato fashion. I have tried to give as many direct answers as I could to direct questions. I thank the hon. Members for the courtesy they have shown in listening to me.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March, 1973 a number not exceeding 113,500 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 13,590 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 400 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

Orders of the Day — MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.56 p.m.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I say that as far as possible I propose to group the Amendments. Should any hon. Member wish to raise a debate, perhaps he will indicate when the time comes.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): There are four further amendments the Chair is aware of that are not on the Notice Paper. They are purely financial provisions taken under previous Amendments in the House of Commons, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) knows all about them.

The Chairman: I am much obliged. It will be quite in order to move these Amendments at the appropriate time.

Clauses I to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF MAINTEN- ANCE ORDER MADE IN UNITED KINGDOM

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 31, leave out 'sheriff' and insert 'court'.
This is a simple technical Amendment to Clause 5 which deals with the variation and revocation of maintenance orders made in the United Kingdom. As the Bill stands at the moment, there could be a difference in practice between what happens in the sheriff court and in the court of session. This is a drafting error that has come to our notice.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) would like me to explain in detail, but I assure him that this is simply a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDER REGISTERED IN UNITED KINGDOM COURT

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 18, at end insert:
'or to an order which is for the time being registered in the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland under Part II of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966'.
It might be convenient to consider at the same time Amendment No. 4 to the Schedule. The purpose of the two Amendments relates purely to Northern Ireland. Under Part 1 of the Bill, all maintenance orders sent from overseas are to be registered and enforced in the first instance in magistrates' courts. Nevertheless a payee overseas whose order is registered in the magistrates' court in England or Wales is not deprived of the possibility of using the enforcement procedure of the High Court, since Part I of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, is to be applied to maintenance orders made overseas and registered under Part I of the Bill. This at the moment does not apply to Northern Ireland, and the purpose of these Amendments, which are proposed after consultation with the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, is that the same arrangements shall apply in Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT) BILL [Lords]

Again considered in Committee.

Clause 10

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER OF ORDER

Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 42, at end insert
';but any arrears due under the registered order at the date when its registration is cancelled by virtue of this subsection shall continue to be recoverable as if the registration had not been cancelled'.
The purpose of the Amendment is to remove a doubt that exists about the enforcement of arrears due on an overseas order which has been revoked. By Clause 10, upon notification of revocation of a registered order being received in this country, the prescribed officer of the registering court is required to cancel the registration of the order.
It might be argued that, with the Bill as drafted, once registration of an overseas order has been cancelled because of revocation, any arrears outstanding at the time of the revocation cannot be recoverable because the power that set up the machinery has been removed. Where the registering court is the court which makes the revocation, there is no difficulty because it can deal with the question of arrears first. But it is felt that there might be difficulties in cases where the overseas court revokes the order and the first thing that the registering court knows is that the court has revoked the order, and then it finds substantial arrears outstanding which it wishes to enforce. The Amendment puts beyond doubt the power of the court to enforce these arrears, irrespective of the revocation of the order in the country in which it was made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11–13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

OBTAINING OF EVIDENCE NEEDED FOR PURPOSE OF CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS

Manuscript Amendment made: In page 17, line 19, at end insert:
(a) if the court is a court in England, Wales or Scotland, out of moneys provided by Parliament; and".

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

CONVENTION COUNTRIES

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I should like to ask one question of the Minister, which might be helpful for the enlightenment of the Committee, the House and the public. Part II of the Bill, as I understand it, enables this country to accede to the convention of 1956.
It contains some 14 or 15 Clauses which set out in detail the law which will come into force as a result of that accession or to enable the accession to take place. I wondered whether the Under-Secretary of State could explain why it is necessary to set out the law in detail in this way rather than follow the precedent which has been followed on another occasion in another Bill when the same object has been given effect to in a single Clause.

Mr. Carlisle: As far as I can understand it, Part I of the Bill deals with bringing up to date provisions relating to those countries which have similar legal systems to our own and it replaces the existing law under the 1920 Act. As the hon and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) says, the whole of Part II deals with our ability to sign the United Nations Convention on this matter which has been signed so far by 36 other countries. It sets out the methods by which one can enforce claims made in countries which have totally different legal systems from ours. The answer to the question must be that it is necessary to set out in the statute the law which is to be applied when we are a signatory to that


Convention. If we sign the Convention without setting out the law, there would be no provisions under which our courts would be acting when they were enforcing claims made in a foreign country whose laws were totally different from those which applied in this country. That is the best I can do for the hon. and learned Gentleman for the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

TAKING OF EVIDENCE AT REQUEST OF COURT IN CONVENTION COUNTRY

Manuscript Amendment made: In page 39, line 26, at end insert
(a) if the court is a court in England, Wales or Scotland, out of moneys provided by Parliament; and'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

EXTENSION OF LEGAL AID.

Manuscript Amendment made: In page 43, line 25, at end insert
(1) At the end of paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule I to the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 (which specifies the proceedings in a magistrates' court or the Crown Court for which legal aid may be given under section 1 of that Act) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph:—
(d) proceedings under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 relating to a maintenance order made by a court of a country outside the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Mark Carlisle.]

Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament—
(a) any sums ordered by a court under section 14(2) or 38(3) of this Act to be paid out of moneys so provided; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949 or the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule

CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 46, line 33, at end insert:

The Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966

5. In section 10 of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (orders to which Part II of that Act applies)—
(a) in subsection (2), after the word 'means' there shall be inserted the words 'an order made outside the United Kingdom and registered in a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 or'; and
(b) at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection:—

'(5) For the purposes of this Part an order made outside the United Kingdom and registered in a court of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland under Part I of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 shall be deemed to be a maintenance order made by that court'.—[Mr. Carlisle.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

PLANNING PROCEDURES (DELAYS)

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House than is necessary because I have in mind the heavy load that has been placed in recent days on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment by the programme before Parliament. But the matter that I wish to raise is very important, and it has been neglected in the past.
My subject is the effect on the environment of delays in planning procedures and public health controls on housing and other properties in urban areas, which causes properties to be left open to vandalism in almost every urban area. In my area of Birmingham there has been continuous vandalism to property for years. At a time when housing property is scarce, every bit of it that is available should be occupied and not left to vandals. Moreover, such property is an eyesore of dilapidation. It is an awful waste of dwellings and vacant land and dereliction resulting from years of delay in planning and other procedures.
It is not my object to criticise my hon. Friend, his Department or the local authorities, which mainly have to carry out the provisions of the housing and other laws in this respect, but rather to try to find out whether the Department has the matter in mind and is trying to do anything about it.
My particular concern is the vandalism resulting from the delays. In many instances, they are not undue delays. Some are, but delays automatically follow from fulfilling the law, with consequent loss of housing accommodation in days of shortage, loss to owners of property, and serious detriment to the environment in almost every urban area. These laws and rules alone are responsible for vandalism on a huge scale. There is little anyone can do about it as long as we have to conform to the laws. Houses would be repaired and occupied without delay were it not for these laws.
I use the instance of a slum house that I bought in Westminster. It was more or less derelict when the previous tenant

moved out. I realised at once that unless I could get the repairers into the property very quickly the house would be no use to anybody, and would probably have to be completely destroyed. We know that this has happened in the large urban areas on a large scale.
I got the repairers in quickly on other work that was not concerned with the laws of planning and repair, so that the house was at no time empty and subject to vandalism. That is not always possible. It is easier for an owner-occupier, who is not so dependent upon the local authorities. Clearly the best safeguard against vandalism of housing property is occupation, and it is more a problem for local authority property and tenanted property.
I quote as an example the case of a widow who dies and who is either a tenant or an owner-occupier of the property. She has not wished to modernise the house but rather to live out the rest of her days with it in a condition which is satisfactory to her. Clearly it is an old house, which needs improvement before relet or for sale. There are thousands of that type of house. After the death of the owner or the tenant, in most cases application has to be made for improvement grants and, very often, a planning change, so the property goes into the filing baskets of the local authority. Whether or not there is undue delay, the house remains empty and there is little one can do about it. The vandals move in. In some cases the vandalism is so bad that the house never gets repaired. It is useless to start improvements, and everything has been wasted.
As I say, this applies not in just one or a dozen cases but in hundreds of cases throughout the land, and nearly always in urban areas.
Another example was pointed out to me by a Birmingham owner. It concerned a house suitable for conversion into two flats. Before it was repaired and reconditioned it was valued at £1,800. It was likely to be worth double that, or more, when the job was done. The usual applications were made without any delay, and the various inspectors and the like moved in to consider the situation and consider all the applications that were put before them. Then, of course, the vandals took over. Day after day attempts were made to secure


the property, but the floorboards vanished, all the water tanks, piping and fittings were removed, and, finally, the house had to be sold in this vandalised condition for £1,000 to somebody who would move in quickly and get something done about it, disregarding all the laws, rules and regulations, and probably committing an offence. But it did save the house.
It may be said that the public or the police should do something about it. I am not here to criticise the police, but we all know how difficult it is for them to act when there are hundreds of vandalised houses. It is difficult for the police to make sure that the house is not being vandalised even while a police car is passing. Whatever our views about police protection, it is fairly ineffective. Again, I stress that I am not criticising the police.
Whenever we elaborate or increase the housing laws, rules and regulations, these problems become more acute. Many owners abandon all interest in otherwise repairable houses because of the labyrinth of controls.
I have here a letter from the City of Salford which is concerned about this problem. The authority has raised it with the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the letter states that the authority is glad that I am able to raise the matter tonight. Salford proposes to put forward legislation—perhaps in the form of a Private Bill similar to the Private Bill presented by Manchester in 1967—to empower it to have the property boarded up and secured. The property should be occupied, and it will be dealt with in this way only if there is delay in the planning procedure or in the local authority health department. If authority could be given to get on with the job tomorrow there would be no need to board up houses; workmen could come in and get on with the job. So bad is the situation in Salford that sometimes the owners cannot be traced. They are not interested in the property because they know that it will be of no use to them.
I also have a letter from Birmingham Corporation quoting another case, but I will not take up the time of the House with it. It is well established that this is a serious problem. Its seriousness was first brought to my attention by the Birmingham Property Owners' Association,

which told me that week after week there were so many cases in Birmingham that I was convinced that some thought must be given to the problem.
The question of the loss to owners who sometimes wish to be owner-occupiers must be considered, and there is certainly a loss of tenanted property Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the Department has given any thought to the overall problem, and what he thinks is the possible solution? I am sorry not to be able to be more constructive, and suggest a solution, but emergency legislation may be needed to enable local authorities to get property on the move rather than allow it to be boarded up.

10.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) for his courtesy in the brevity of his remarks and for the way in which he explained the care which the Department that I represent brings to the cases placed in front of it. As one of the Ministers responsible for the administration of the road programme, I am aware of the problems that he has mentioned. We have the same problem whenever we acquire houses for that programme.
I want to make detailed comments on what my hon. Friend has said and make one or two observations of my own. I will look carefully at the problem to which he has drawn the attention of the House and will follow up the debate by writing to my hon. Friend, setting out my views on the detailed points that he has raised.
This is an important matter. Not only do houses fall into disrepair and become vandalised, but there is a spin-off effect on the neighbourhood. The litter associated with these houses and their general atmosphere can have a most unfortunate effect on neighbouring properties. I certainly take very seriously what my hon. Friend has said.
I want to say a word about the problem as I see it. As a Government, we have to provide a satisfactory framework within which local authorities can operate planning procedures. It would be unthinkable to go back to a situation in which there were no planning procedures. I am sure that it is quite obvious to everybody that the moment controls are imposed


they have to be obeyed. Exceptions of the sort that might be tempting in certain genuine cases cannot be allowed, because some people will always find ways of rushing through any loopholes that result from such flexibility.
During the reorganisation of local government we have been reviewing all kinds of controls over local authorities, to ensure that approvals or consents from central Government which may be suggested to be holding up the procedure are scrutinised with a view to their repeal. In the Bill now being examined by a Standing Committee upstairs a whole range of minor controls of the frustrating sort that my hon. Friend would want to see abolished will be abolished. The Bill before the House deals with some of them, but others will have to wait until appropriate legislation comes before the House in which the abolition of the superfluous controls can take place.
One is left with a situation in which the local authorities are essentially responsible for the running of their own affairs and the rôle of central Government is one of offering advice and guidance. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that my Department is very active on this front. We have announced to the House that we propose to give advice to planning authorities on ways in which local planning procedures can be speeded up. In the first place, a memorandum will be put to the local authority associations for discussion. In the light of the consultations that follow we shall issue a circular. We have in mind to dispense with the special period of three months for dealing with cases affecting the Department's trunks roads, which affect houses.
There is no getting away from the fact that there are pressures on the planning machine which tend to lengthen the time taken in reaching decisions. There is a whole range of consultations through which the authorities have to go, and the Department's experience is that the range of consultation is being widened continually, as more and more people seek to come within the framework. Certainly one of the most substantial campaigns that I have witnessed since I became a Member of this House has been the campaign to widen the range for the notification of planning

applications. Local government development has gone a long way towards accepting the purpose of that campaign. Further, there is now the need to consult river authorities and the factory inspectorate in their respective fields.
Participation by the public, which is ever more demanded, is very much the sort of thing that is bound to lead to more balances. These balances give a very good idea of the difficulties that the planning authorities face and with them in mind and with the reorganisation of local government pending we certainly intend to look at the whole system of development control. It may be practicable to devise some means of simplifying and streamlining planning procedures, and we shall certainly make every effort to find a way.
In the meantime, we have no alternative but to get the best out of the present system. I know that in Birmingham there is a problem with the conversion of older houses, and the damage and vandalism that occur when houses are left standing for any period before reoccupation undoubtedly raises a problem. Housing associations are among the agencies which carry out these conversions, but a whole range of procedures has to be gone through before they can get on with the job—planning permissions, building regulation approval and, in some cases, approval for improvement grant purposes and loans approval for the acquisition of properties.
The important thing is to ensure that the handling of planning proposals is coordinated with the local authority. There is no doubt that developers can do a great deal to help if they have early discussions with planning authorities. My mind searches in vain for an answer to the case of the elderly widow in owner-occupation who dies, and whose executors have to come in to solve the problems and sort out the difficulties. I do not know how one anticipates a situation of that sort. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my difficulties. Developers can assist a good deal by having informal discussions with the local authorities before drawing up detailed proposals which might, in some crucial way, offend the likelihood of their getting applications at a later date. I do not think that there is any question of unnecessary delay in my Department. My hon. Friend has


been generous in making this point for me, and therefore I do not think I need answer it.
I want to say a word about empty houses which are awaiting slum clearance. These present a difficult situation and very much illustrate my hon. Friend's point. Thirty-one authorities have taken power in local Acts under which they can ensure that vacant buildings in clearance areas are made secure. This places the onus on the owner of the building and in other cases empowers the local authority to make the building secure, notwithstanding the fact that the building is still privately owned and is not to be acquired by the local authority. It is desirable for houses to be demolished as soon as possible after families are re-housed, but that is not practicable where individual houses in an area are vacated some time before other families can be rehoused.
About 25 of the larger authorities and six county councils, including districts,

have taken local Act powers to meet these situations. The Government will consider taking general powers as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. Where the houses are purchased by the authority they can be made secure, quite apart from such powers.
I have tried to show how, in practice, planning matters are affected by the relationship between developers, local authorities and the Government. I accept the responsibility to provide an adequate framework of legislation and administration. It is fair to stress that only the closest co-operation between applicants, local authorities and, in some cases, departmental branches, can ensure that the system works smoothly. I shall read my hon. Friend's speech with great care and contact him to see whether there is anything further that I can add.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.